Constitution

Article II, Section 3: The Duties of the President

Section 3 tells the President to report on the state of the Union, receive ambassadors and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

4Conservative Editors · Published November 8, 2026

The text

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

In plain English

This one sentence lists what the President must and may do.

  • Report to Congress. He gives Congress information on "the State of the Union" and recommends "such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." Presidents delivered this annually in writing from Jefferson until Woodrow Wilson revived the spoken address in 1913.
  • Convene Congress. On "extraordinary Occasions" he may call one or both houses into session. He may adjourn them only if they disagree about the time of adjournment, a power no President has ever used.
  • Receive ambassadors. By receiving foreign envoys, the President speaks for the United States in recognizing foreign governments.
  • Take Care. He "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This is a duty, not a power: the President must carry out the laws Congress passes.
  • Commission officers. He signs the commissions of all officers of the United States.

The Take Care Clause is the key phrase. It makes the President answerable for execution of the law and constrains him: he cannot ignore a valid statute, and he cannot rewrite one.

What the Founders said

The Take Care Clause was written against the practice of English kings who claimed a power to dispense with or suspend Parliament's laws. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 had declared that the pretended power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal. The American clause turned that grievance into a presidential duty.

Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 77 about the President's role in relation to Congress and the Senate, and in Federalist No. 72 described the administration of government as the proper province of the executive. The recommendation power was seen as a way for the President to bring his judgment on legislation before Congress without being able to compel it.

James Wilson, speaking at the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, drew the contrast with the British king: the American President could not suspend the operation of a law.

How the courts have read it

  • Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes (1838): the Take Care Clause does not allow the President to forbid an officer from performing a ministerial duty imposed by law.
  • Myers v. United States (1926): the clause supports the President's power to remove executive officers who carry out the law.
  • Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): the President's role in lawmaking is to recommend and to veto; seizing steel mills was lawmaking.
  • Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (2010) and Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (2020): the Court has tied the Take Care Clause to the President's power to supervise subordinates who execute the law.
  • United States v. Texas (2023): states lacked standing to challenge federal enforcement priorities, which the Court tied to the executive's Article II discretion over arrests and prosecutions.
  • Trump v. United States (2024): the Court treated the President's supervision of the Justice Department as a core executive power.

Why it matters now

The Take Care Clause cuts in two directions at once. When a President declines to enforce a statute he dislikes, or rewrites its terms by memo, he fails the duty to execute the law faithfully. When Congress writes statutes so vaguely that the executive must make the real policy choices, the clause is also strained. Partisans of each party have invoked it against the other's President.

For conservatives the clause carries particular weight. It rests on the rule of law: the same statutes should bind every administration, and enforcement priorities should not become a cover for suspending whole categories of law. Prosecutorial discretion is real and necessary, since no administration can enforce everything, but it differs from announcing that a law will not be enforced for entire classes of people.

The clause also asks how much of the executive branch actually answers to the person who is charged with taking care. If the President is responsible for faithful execution, he needs the authority to oversee those who execute. This is why the debates over independent agencies and civil-service protections go back to a single sentence.

Latest on this topic