Why does a president get so much power?

[dolf]

And is it a good thing?

....In the UK we elect a party, rather than a person, and the PM has considerably less power as an individual. I recall an argument here with someone who understood very little about our political system, who had read about our PM favouring some potentially disastrous idea for drivers and insisted it would be law, which of course it isn't. Such is the power of the PM!

Does a president have too much power? Or not enough?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

And is it a good thing?

....In the UK we elect a party, rather than a person, and the PM has considerably less power as an individual. I recall an argument here with someone who understood very little about our political system, who had read about our PM favouring some potentially disastrous idea for drivers and insisted it would be law, which of course it isn't. Such is the power of the PM!

Does a president have too much power? Or not enough?

I don't think you can ever definitively answer that question. The parliamentary system has its advantages and disadvantages, as does a republic.

I think the form of government is less important than the number of political parties vying for power. In a legislative system where no single party has a majority, it would seem you always run the risk of never having true public approval for the government's direction.

I believe that was a fundamental element in paving the way for the Nazis in pre-World War II Germany.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Shit happens.

Pols exist to attend the Queens birthday party, leaders exist to deal with shit.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

He has the appearance of power because the Congress has gotten timid and afraid to do its job because doing something can and will be used against you in the next election.

In modern history, very few Presidents have had to worry about their reelection, so they are not as afraid to act.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I spent a career in government, and back in 1968 in Vietnam somebody gets to be boss even when no one wamts the job. And its that way everywhere, all the time. When Darth Vader walks thru the door somebody is the boss. Its the axis of every Clint Eastwood movie.

 

[magicalmoments]

My observation is that the USA system was set up in an age and world when Kings ruled.

It follows that the Republican presidential model was based on what the leading minds of the day were familiar with, Kings!

They gave their newly created head of state the powers of a king with a few revolutionary checks and balances thrown in to prevent the excesses apparent in the royal versions in Europe.

The result being that today the president is more than a figurehead head of state, like, say Queen Elizabeth II, he has real power and lots of it.

 

[jaF0]

It's about checks and balances. No one branch of government should go unchecked. They each have to balance each other.

I would not be comfortable with Congress deciding who gets to be President. But I'm also not comfortable with a President being able to fire anyone they choose at will, especially if they are under suspicion of some sort and the ones they fire are the ones doing the investigations.

As far as one party controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, that should be prohibited.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

My observation is that the USA system was set up in an age and world when Kings ruled.

It follows that the Republican presidential model was based on what the leading minds of the day were familiar with, Kings!

They gave their newly created head of state the powers of a king with a few revolutionary checks and balances thrown in to prevent the excesses apparent in the royal versions in Europe.

The result being that today the president is more than a figurehead head of state, like, say Queen Elizabeth II, he has real power and lots of it.

Read The Federalist Papers...

In it, the Founders discussed previous Democracies, their failures and how their system would address the flaws that caused Democratic failure.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It's about checks and balances. No one branch of government should go unchecked. They each have to balance each other.

I would not be comfortable with Congress deciding who gets to be President. But I'm also not comfortable with a President being able to fire anyone they choose at will, especially if they are under suspicion of some sort and the ones they fire are the ones doing the investigations.

As far as one party controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, that should be prohibited.

The President cannot fire "anyone" at will. There are those whom serve at his pleasure that can be fired is all...

 

[jaF0]

The President cannot fire "anyone" at will. There are those whom serve at his pleasure that can be fired is all...

Tell that to Bahara, Yates and Comey. What I don't get is how he can fire someone who had to be approved by Congress. Why don't they get a say in terminations?

 

[ishtat]

And is it a good thing?

....In the UK we elect a party, rather than a person, and the PM has considerably less power as an individual. I recall an argument here with someone who understood very little about our political system, who had read about our PM favouring some potentially disastrous idea for drivers and insisted it would be law, which of course it isn't. Such is the power of the PM!

Does a president have too much power? Or not enough?

I think that Dolf's basic assertion is wrong. In domestic politics a President can be completely hobbled by a recalcitrant Congress - witness Obama post 2010. In Foreign affairs it is a different story. The Constitution suitable domestically, largely ignored foreign issues, thus all Presidents have more power outside the country. Only Presidents who control Congress can achieve domestically.

The office of UK PM has become more 'presidential' in recent times. Thatcher in 1979, Blair in 1996 and probably May post June 2017 had, or will have massive majorities, and no opposition to speak of, and thus held great individual power.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Tell that to Bahara, Yates and Comey. What I don't get is how he can fire someone who had to be approved by Congress. Why don't they get a say in terminations?

Because of the advice and consent clause. It gives them a role only in the hiring...


And it's not the Congress, it's the Senate whose initial design was as the guardian of State's interests. The People's House was given no role in this, one of the safeguards against the passions of the mob. Of course the 17th amendment eliminated that protection which is why the Senate is so fucking broke today, it doesn't answer to the State Legislature, it has to answer to the mob.


~~btw~~


The 19th Amendment may have been a YUUUUUGE mistake too...


***** ducks and runs *****

 

[adrina]

See Lincoln, Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Nixon. I think Reagan and Bush added to it too.

 

[Lancecastor]

Any recent nudes of dilf in this tread?

 

[jaF0]

Any recent nudes of dilf in this tread?

I wanna see the collared redhead's tits.

 

[Lancecastor]

More dilfs, fewer US remedial civics classes.

 

[adrina]

I wanna see the collared redhead's tits.

We all have our dreams.

 

[kbate]

The 19th Amendment may have been a YUUUUUGE mistake too...

Definitely, without this, the 1924 Indian Citizen Act probably would never have been proposed. And that we know, was a mistake of constitutional proportions.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

*chuckle*

 

[kbate]

To answer the OP question:

Our president has only the powers granted by the paper that creates the office. The main power are that of being commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and that of the executive order. One is pointless except in times of war (which may well be why America has been at war since 1941). The other is only now becoming the main instrument of government. With a congress divided 50/50 and unable to meet its obligations without changing its rules or using obscure budget language to pass bills, the executive order becomes even stronger. To overturn one is nearly impossible with the divided congress, explaining why you see the opposition party using the courts to do that which they cannot through their constitutional power.

What you are seeing in America is the end of the Republic - death by a two party system. We are acting more and more as a Parliamentary system, we elect a party now, either D or R and they form a government. We simply do not yet have a prime minister.

The office was intended to be powerful, but checked by a congress which would in turn be checked by the senate and president. The original idea never considered career politicians dedicated to destroying opposition rather than to governing the nation. The system assumed that the best of men would step up into the offices and overcome their prejudices to give us the best of laws; sort of laughable since the founders came from the richest of men, fighting to avoid giving any of their wealth to the crown.

 

[Wrong Element]

Tell that to Bahara, Yates and Comey. What I don't get is how he can fire someone who had to be approved by Congress. Why don't they get a say in terminations?

This was the question behind the first presidential impeachment.

My observation is that the USA system was set up in an age and world when Kings ruled.

It follows that the Republican presidential model was based on what the leading minds of the day were familiar with, Kings!

They gave their newly created head of state the powers of a king with a few revolutionary checks and balances thrown in to prevent the excesses apparent in the royal versions in Europe.

The result being that today the president is more than a figurehead head of state, like, say Queen Elizabeth II, he has real power and lots of it.

Well, no. The office of the president was created by people who had no use whatsoever for kings.

Practically speaking, the power of the president has grown along with the size of the executive branch, especially the national security apparatus.

 

[JohnnySavage]

To answer the OP question:

Our president has only the powers granted by the paper that creates the office. The main power are that of being commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and that of the executive order. One is pointless except in times of war (which may well be why America has been at war since 1941). The other is only now becoming the main instrument of government. With a congress divided 50/50 and unable to meet its obligations without changing its rules or using obscure budget language to pass bills, the executive order becomes even stronger. To overturn one is nearly impossible with the divided congress, explaining why you see the opposition party using the courts to do that which they cannot through their constitutional power.

What you are seeing in America is the end of the Republic - death by a two party system. We are acting more and more as a Parliamentary system, we elect a party now, either D or R and they form a government. We simply do not yet have a prime minister.

The office was intended to be powerful, but checked by a congress which would in turn be checked by the senate and president. The original idea never considered career politicians dedicated to destroying opposition rather than to governing the nation. The system assumed that the best of men would step up into the offices and overcome their prejudices to give us the best of laws; sort of laughable since the founders came from the richest of men, fighting to avoid giving any of their wealth to the crown.

Spot on.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Maxine Waters is the best of men...

 

[Rightguide]

Along with being the Chief law enforcement officer in the United States, the CinC of the military, the executive power of the United States is vested in him constitutionally, as that aspect of government grows in size and scope so does his ultimate power.

 

[Rightguide]

Maxine Waters is the best of men...

Stealing James Brown's wig isn't enough to get the job done though.