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

[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?

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.

The solution to all these problems you list is not bigger government.  Big government is what led to these pointless international quagmires over the past half-century.  And it is what has led to our failing educational system.  What we need is smaller, decentralized government, and more personal liberty.  People become fat and stupid when they do not need to do anything for themselves, and government becomes oligarchic when there is one person to represent seven-hundred thousand people, and one legislative body to make law for three-hundred million.

[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.

The solution to all these problems you list is not bigger government.  Big government is what led to these pointless international quagmires over the past half-century.  And it is what has led to our failing educational system.  What we need is smaller, decentralized government, and more personal liberty.  People become fat and stupid when they do not need to do anything for themselves, and government becomes oligarchic when there is one person to represent seven-hundred thousand people, and one legislative body to make law for three-hundred million.

I would argue that private business interests have been fueling our recent foreign escapades, it's nothing to do with the proper functions of working government. Also, I would like to make sure that you realize that American 'public' schools are some of the most deregulated and decentralized in the world with funding coming almost entirely from private investors and local/state governments. It's the system that birthed standardized testing. The only people who need not do anything in this country are those that benefit from the unfortunate alignment of our government and our citizens. Most of those 'lazy, welfare cases' that you probably have in mind when you make this argument are the cogs that operate our society and they are starving to death under our largely deregulated system. There is a lower class that does all of the work, a middle class that pays all of the taxes, and an upper class that enjoys the end result. Our system is dramatically flawed, ask any homeless man that can't find a job because he lacks a valid address or worse yet, can't find a place to shower.