Does the U.S. President Have Too Much Power?

[Bo]

.

[Franzl]

Not in theory, although the President tends to overintepret his role.

[Vepres]

The power that seems to be there really masks a rather weak office. However, if a President is a good leader, they can be powerful, though a Senator who was a good leader could be too.

[Franzl]

The power that seems to be there really masks a rather weak office. However, if a President is a good leader, they can be powerful, though a Senator who was a good leader could be too.

Depends on the circumstances. Bush knew how to get power, although he probably wasn't a very good leader.

[Free Palestine]

Yes.

[Bo]

Yes.

[Frodo]

Yes -in the sense that he has the power to go to war even without an explicit declaration of war from Congress.  That seems to me to be in direct conflict with the Constitution. That has always bothered me, more than anything else about that office. 

[opebo]

No.  The owning class has too much power.  The President is nearly meaningless.

[MK]

No.  The owning class has too much power.  The President is nearly meaningless.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Absolutely.

[Scam of God]

Yes -in the sense that he has the power to go to war even without an explicit declaration of war from Congress.  That seems to me to be in direct conflict with the Constitution. That has always bothered me, more than anything else about that office. 

[CatoMinor]

Yes.

[Psychic Octopus]

Yes -in the sense that he has the power to go to war even without an explicit declaration of war from Congress.  That seems to me to be in direct conflict with the Constitution. That has always bothered me, more than anything else about that office. 

[Vepres]

The power that seems to be there really masks a rather weak office. However, if a President is a good leader, they can be powerful, though a Senator who was a good leader could be too.

Depends on the circumstances. Bush knew how to get power, although he probably wasn't a very good leader.

The point is it is not inherently powerful.

[Magic 8-Ball]

Only in the sense that presidents are too easily able to bully Congress (effective ones, at least).

It's not like the president isn't handcuffed legally by the War Powers Resolution.  Bush got around it by manipulating a rather weak and partisan Congress.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Constitutionally?  No.   They certainly try and grab more than they have.

[perdedor]

Not really. In general, it's the American system of division of powers that's at fault. Powers are divided in a way to create deadlock prevent any of the branches from actually accomplishing anything.

[Franzl]

Not really. In general, it's the American system of division of powers that's at fault. Powers are divided in a way to create deadlock prevent any of the branches from actually accomplishing anything.

Garbage...what does division of power have to do with the legislature not being able to accomplish anything?

Internal Senate procedure is the main reason for inability to accomplish stuff.

[perdedor]

Not really. In general, it's the American system of division of powers that's at fault. Powers are divided in a way to create deadlock prevent any of the branches from actually accomplishing anything.

Garbage...what does division of power have to do with the legislature not being able to accomplish anything?

Internal Senate procedure is the main reason for inability to accomplish stuff.

We have legislative duties broken into two houses that are rarely on the same page. Complex and counterproductive procedural rules are only the nature of the beast itself. I would prefer the Senate be dissolved and the House given direct legislative authority. The Supreme Court could also be up for review. I suppose I am calling for a new Constitution.

[Free Palestine]

Not really. In general, it's the American system of division of powers that's at fault. Powers are divided in a way to create deadlock prevent any of the branches from actually accomplishing anything.

Garbage...what does division of power have to do with the legislature not being able to accomplish anything?

Internal Senate procedure is the main reason for inability to accomplish stuff.

We have legislative duties broken into two houses that are rarely on the same page. Complex and counterproductive procedural rules are only the nature of the beast itself. I would prefer the Senate be dissolved and the House given direct legislative authority. The Supreme Court could also be up for review. I suppose I am calling for a new Constitution.

Our system of separation of powers and checks and balances is meant to prevent tyranny.  For one, dissolving the Senate and having a unicameral Congress would create a government that sways whichever way the wind blows, in terms of public opinion.  Which is not always a good thing.  The Supreme Court is there to check the other two branches of the federal government, and strike down laws which are unconstitutional.

If we take the steps you are proposing, we will probably go the way of the Roman Republic.

[Beet]

Too general. Some Presidents have a lot of power [relative to the office], some Presidents do not.

[perdedor]

Not really. In general, it's the American system of division of powers that's at fault. Powers are divided in a way to create deadlock prevent any of the branches from actually accomplishing anything.

Garbage...what does division of power have to do with the legislature not being able to accomplish anything?

Internal Senate procedure is the main reason for inability to accomplish stuff.

We have legislative duties broken into two houses that are rarely on the same page. Complex and counterproductive procedural rules are only the nature of the beast itself. I would prefer the Senate be dissolved and the House given direct legislative authority. The Supreme Court could also be up for review. I suppose I am calling for a new Constitution.

Our system of separation of powers and checks and balances is meant to prevent tyranny.  For one, dissolving the Senate and having a unicameral Congress would create a government that sways whichever way the wind blows, in terms of public opinion.  Which is not always a good thing.  The Supreme Court is there to check the other two branches of the federal government, and strike down laws which are unconstitutional.

If we take the steps you are proposing, we will probably go the way of the Roman Republic.

For starters our bicameral Congress already sways in this manner as different politicians with different viewpoints are elected to replace others. That is just the reality of a democratic system of government.

In terms of the Supreme Court, you are correct. They are there to strike down any law that they deem unconstitutional. Therefore, true executive authority is held by a judicial oligarchy whose real power comes from strict constitutional dogma. As I said, I am in no way opposed to drafting a new constitution.

[Free Palestine]

Not really. In general, it's the American system of division of powers that's at fault. Powers are divided in a way to create deadlock prevent any of the branches from actually accomplishing anything.

Garbage...what does division of power have to do with the legislature not being able to accomplish anything?

Internal Senate procedure is the main reason for inability to accomplish stuff.

We have legislative duties broken into two houses that are rarely on the same page. Complex and counterproductive procedural rules are only the nature of the beast itself. I would prefer the Senate be dissolved and the House given direct legislative authority. The Supreme Court could also be up for review. I suppose I am calling for a new Constitution.

Our system of separation of powers and checks and balances is meant to prevent tyranny.  For one, dissolving the Senate and having a unicameral Congress would create a government that sways whichever way the wind blows, in terms of public opinion.  Which is not always a good thing.  The Supreme Court is there to check the other two branches of the federal government, and strike down laws which are unconstitutional.

If we take the steps you are proposing, we will probably go the way of the Roman Republic.

For starters our bicameral Congress already sways in this manner as different politicians with different viewpoints are elected to replace others. That is just the reality of a democratic system of government.

In terms of the Supreme Court, you are correct. They are there to strike down any law that they deem unconstitutional. Therefore, true executive authority is held by a judicial oligarchy whose real power comes from strict constitutional dogma. As I said, I am in no way opposed to drafting a new constitution.

The Senate's purpose was eliminated with the Seventeenth Amendment.  Originally it was meant to balance the popular will with the interests of the state governments.  There would be no Patriot Act, if there was not a Seventeenth Amendment.

You're advocating a government that does not have limits - one that can develop into tyranny.  We have a written Constitution with strict limits on federal power, to ensure that we do not go the way of the Roman Republic.  Without a Senate or a Supreme Court, the government can sway dramatically with the popular whim.  What stops the legislature, in this system, from granting "emergency powers" to the executive, for example?

[Scam of God]

Quite frankly, I'm in favor of abolishing our entire system of representation in favor of a staggered system -- each sphere of society would be directly governed by its own representation, with little to no political contact between the two.

[perdedor]

Not really. In general, it's the American system of division of powers that's at fault. Powers are divided in a way to create deadlock prevent any of the branches from actually accomplishing anything.

Garbage...what does division of power have to do with the legislature not being able to accomplish anything?

Internal Senate procedure is the main reason for inability to accomplish stuff.

We have legislative duties broken into two houses that are rarely on the same page. Complex and counterproductive procedural rules are only the nature of the beast itself. I would prefer the Senate be dissolved and the House given direct legislative authority. The Supreme Court could also be up for review. I suppose I am calling for a new Constitution.

Our system of separation of powers and checks and balances is meant to prevent tyranny.  For one, dissolving the Senate and having a unicameral Congress would create a government that sways whichever way the wind blows, in terms of public opinion.  Which is not always a good thing.  The Supreme Court is there to check the other two branches of the federal government, and strike down laws which are unconstitutional.

If we take the steps you are proposing, we will probably go the way of the Roman Republic.

For starters our bicameral Congress already sways in this manner as different politicians with different viewpoints are elected to replace others. That is just the reality of a democratic system of government.

In terms of the Supreme Court, you are correct. They are there to strike down any law that they deem unconstitutional. Therefore, true executive authority is held by a judicial oligarchy whose real power comes from strict constitutional dogma. As I said, I am in no way opposed to drafting a new constitution.

The Senate's purpose was eliminated with the Seventeenth Amendment.  Originally it was meant to balance the popular will with the interests of the state governments.  There would be no Patriot Act, if there was not a Seventeenth Amendment.

You're advocating a government that does not have limits - one that can develop into tyranny.  We have a written Constitution with strict limits on federal power, to ensure that we do not go the way of the Roman Republic.  Without a Senate or a Supreme Court, the government can sway dramatically with the popular whim.  What stops the legislature, in this system, from granting "emergency powers" to the executive, for example?

You're suggesting that I am a statist? Well, you're probably right. I feel that our government is too limited. Our people are fat and oblivious as we continue to throw our fiat money down the oil well to fund our international quagmires. All the while, the private institutions that pull the puppet strings of this nation have brought us to the brink of financial destruction.This government only operates to maintain deadlock, it is not suitable for preventing the collapse of a nation. Call me what you must, but tyranny and freedom are only points of view...and in mine, what we have now is the worst sort of tyranny - tyranny of the masses.

To more directly answer your question, nothing is in place to stop my unicameral congress from granting 'emergency powers' to the executive branch.