Presidential vs. Congressional power

[pecksniff]

Neither party has any consistent ideological position on the proper allocation of powers and functions between the executive and legislative branches. Generally, each party just demands more power for whichever branch it controls at the moment.

The only constant is that the Imperial Presidency always wins -- it might suffer setbacks, but in the long run, it never lets go of a power once it has gotten away with exercising it successfully. The power of the presidency increases by an irreversible ratchet effect.

Should Congress reassert a stronger role? And, is there any way it could?

 

[pecksniff]

It all started when Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase. In theory he was a strict constructionist, and he could find nothing in the Constitution authorizing the president to acquire national territory by purchase. OTOH, it was just too good a deal to pass up. So he went ahead with it, and nobody objected.

 

[BidudeinWi]

Neither party has any consistent ideological position on the proper allocation of powers and functions between the executive and legislative branches. Generally, each party just demands more power for whichever branch it controls at the moment.

The only constant is that the Imperial Presidency always wins -- it might suffer setbacks, but in the long run, it never lets go of a power once it has gotten away with exercising it successfully. The power of the presidency increases by an irreversible ratchet effect.

Should Congress reassert a stronger role? And, is there any way it could?

The Constitution should be followed and enforced to the letter l!

 

[pecksniff]

Of course, the environment post-WWII escalated the situation -- by making the president the only one with authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.

 

[BidudeinWi]

Of course, the environment post-WWII escalated the situation -- by making the president the only one with authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.

Is that unconstitutional? From a practical perspective, if we’re under attack, should we wait for Congress to debate it and pass a law that says retaliate? The POTUS IS the Commander in Chief. Not sure what your point is. You have a better idea?

 

[Rightguide]

Neither party has any consistent ideological position on the proper allocation of powers and functions between the executive and legislative branches. Generally, each party just demands more power for whichever branch it controls at the moment.

The only constant is that the Imperial Presidency always wins -- it might suffer setbacks, but in the long run, it never lets go of a power once it has gotten away with exercising it successfully. The power of the presidency increases by an irreversible ratchet effect.

Should Congress reassert a stronger role? And, is there any way it could?

Congressional powers are enumerated. So are those of the Executive, and there is only one CinC, not 535.

 

[pecksniff]

Congressional powers are enumerated. So are those of the Executive, and there is only one CinC, not 535.

But the constitutional text leaves a lot indeterminate. How many times has the SCOTUS shot down an expansion of presidential power? Once during the New Deal, I think, but that's about it. And the president is CinC of the Armed Forces only, nothing else.

 

[Rightguide]

But the constitutional text leaves a lot indeterminate. How many times has the SCOTUS shot down an expansion of presidential power? Once during the New Deal, I think, but that's about it. And the president is CinC of the Armed Forces only, nothing else.

Bullshit. If war is declared he like FDR will be running the entire country.

 

[KeithD]

The Constitution should be followed and enforced to the letter l!

So, if you aren't the member of a regulated government militia, you're turning in your guns? *cool*

 

[Bud_Spencer]

It all started when Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase. In theory he was a strict constructionist, and he could find nothing in the Constitution authorizing the president to acquire national territory by purchase. OTOH, it was just too good a deal to pass up. So he went ahead with it, and nobody objected.

No, he made it a treaty, thus subject to Senate review and ratification.

 

[Rightguide]

No, he made it a treaty, thus subject to Senate review and ratification.

Pecksniff is ignorant of real history. Louisiana Purchase Treaty, 1803.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Neither party has any consistent ideological position on the proper allocation of powers and functions between the executive and legislative branches. Generally, each party just demands more power for whichever branch it controls at the moment.

The only constant is that the Imperial Presidency always wins -- it might suffer setbacks, but in the long run, it never lets go of a power once it has gotten away with exercising it successfully. The power of the presidency increases by an irreversible ratchet effect.

Should Congress reassert a stronger role? And, is there any way it could?

The first thing Congress should do is stop passing "laws" that are little more than lists of goals and the granting of power to whatever Executive agency that might enforce it to figure out the details.

But Congress likes doing that because it lets Congrsss sound noble and high-minded while retaining the right to bitch about the implementation of their wonderful law by an incompetent beureaucracy.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Pecksniff is ignorant of real history. Louisiana Purchase Treaty, 1803.

That's kind of a big deal around here. I went to school with a guy whose great-great grandpappy was a broker for the deal.

 

[pecksniff]

No, he made it a treaty, thus subject to Senate review and ratification.

Nevertheless, it is well documented that Jefferson had serious concerns about the deal's constitutionality. The Constitution does not expressly authorize the Senate to buy territory either.

 

[Rightguide]

That's kind of a big deal around here. I went to school with a guy whose great-great grandpappy was a broker for the deal.

No doubt this has led to a frantic call to "Siri" at Peck's house.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Nevertheless, it is well documented that Jefferson had serious concerns about the deal's constitutionality. The Constitution does not expressly authorize the Senate to buy territory either.

I think they got it right with the treaty. The powers of the President and Senate are pretty wide-open when dealing with foreign powers, as you'd expect, given that they would have to deal with a wide ranging set of issues.

 

[pecksniff]

Of course, the environment post-WWII escalated the situation -- by making the president the only one with authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.

And, what else could they do? It's not like in event of Soviet attack, they could take time to ask Congress for a vote.

 

[pecksniff]

I notice that nobody has actually taken sides on this question. Should Congress assert more power than it has been, and chip away at presidential power, or should it not?

Any answer has to be defensible in nonpartisan terms -- that is, it must apply with equal force no matter which party controls which branch. It's a basic constitutional question.

 

[Rightguide]

I notice that nobody has actually taken sides on this question. Should Congress assert more power than it has been, and chip away at presidential power, or should it not?

Any answer has to be defensible in nonpartisan terms -- that is, it must apply with equal force no matter which party controls which branch. It's a basic constitutional question.

Congress can only act within the Constitution. It cannot "chip away" at the plenary powers of the Executive.

 

[pecksniff]

Congress can only act within the Constitution. It cannot "chip away" at the plenary powers of the Executive.

That does not really shed any light on the question. The Constitution leaves too much indeterminate, with respect to the allocation of power between branches.

 

[JohnnySavage]

No, it doesn't. It is exceedingly clear. Each branch even has it's own Article so dumb people can follow along.

 

[Rightguide]

No, it doesn't. It is exceedingly clear. Each branch even has it's own Article so dumb people can follow along.

Pecksniff, take note.

 

[pecksniff]

No, it doesn't. It is exceedingly clear. Each branch even has it's own Article so dumb people can follow along.

And each article leaves out everything the FFs could not have anticipated.

 

[pecksniff]

Nobody cares to actually take a side on this?

It is a pretty important question.

Is it uninteresting, just because, as noted in the OP, neither party has any consistent position on it?