[Willie Green]

Though the word "economy" is not in the Constitution, the public expects the president to be "manager of the economy." If a president has a hemorrhage of job losses "on his watch," whether responsible or not, voters may retire him quickly from office.

What's so special about inclusion of the specific word "economy"???
It is EXTREMELY clear in many Constitutional clauses that our Founders were well aware of Government's interaction with economic affairs. That's why they specificly empowered Congress with methods of economic intervention, with the expectation that those powers would be utilized to BENEFIT the American People, NOT to maliciously PLUNDER our Middle Class.

ARTICLE I, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to...
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

There are many, MANY more examples.
So the Founders didn't use the specific word "economy". So what?

[Theodore R.]

Willie, what I meant to say is that the Constitution does not address economic issues in Article II (the executive branch). Those are mainly confined to Article I (the legislative branch), as you so listed.

Since John Quincy Adams, people have blamed a "weak" economy on the sitting administration. JQA lost to Jackson, etc., etc.