Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
Posts: 18,043
Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46
|
 |
« on: July 20, 2016, 10:50:44 AM » |
|
I don't understand why many of you consider such an arrangement "Constitutionally dubious".
The Constitution says that the President is entitled to his own aides and advisers, and in many administrations high-level advisers may actually have more power than the President himself in certain areas of federal policy.
President's typically pick only 2-3 grand, overreaching priorities per administration. '01-'04 Dubya had tax cuts and NCLB. His second term's were unsuccessful attempts and Social Security and immigration reform. Obama in his first term focused on the stimulus, health care reform and Dodd-Frank. Because of an unresponsive Congress, his second term's priorities have tended to center around realigning Cuba and Iran.
President's generally, outside of these main areas where they devote most of their personal time/energy, leave the rest of government to advisers.
And I'm glad as hell it does work that way. Someone like Barack Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois when he became President, has no business trying to micromanage the Bureau of Land Management's Office of Damage Assessment and Reclamation, for example, or the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service. He should turn that over to advisers with actual knowledge and experience in those areas, and the President should stick to using the bully pulpit to build support for his grand initiatives.
The President is his men.
Making the Vice President a central and key adviser to the President on federal policy is no more Constitutionally dubious then the current role of White House Chief of Staff.
|
