Is it a good thing that US Presidents have their own legislative agendas?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Just curious about this one.

[Damocles]

Not necessarily a bad thing, but what is a problem is that our Congress has become so deadlocked that to overcome the deadlock, we’re dependent on executive agencies and decrees from the president to get anything done. It’s hardly a wonder why Presidents have such wide ranging agendas. But the presidential system in its current form undermines the authority of representative bodies and makes us vulnerable to authoritarians.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Not necessarily a bad thing, but what is a problem is that our Congress has become so deadlocked that to overcome the deadlock, we’re dependent on executive agencies and decrees from the president to get anything done. It’s hardly a wonder why Presidents have such wide ranging agendas. But the presidential system in its current form undermines the authority of representative bodies and makes us vulnerable to authoritarians.

Yeah, this is about where I'm at.

[Damocles]

Yeah, this is about where I'm at.

I’m of the opinion that executive power ought to derive from legislative power, i.e. that the power to implement law naturally follows from the power to make law. The former is already loaded with interpretation and subjectivity in what to enforce and what not to enforce, so it is better if this capacity is restrained and conditional on the support of a wide consensus.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Hot take: the President being a figure who campaigns on the promises of a partisan legislative agenda is bad within the context of the American system. That is to say, this is a bad dynamic because the President is constitutionally separate from the legislative branch, and so the head of the executive branch can't be booted out by a simple vote of no confidence or a change in partisan control of the legislature.

In our system, the only circumstances in which the executive can actually be removed from office by the legislative branch would be circumstances in which the executive would have no practical power anyway; incapacitated, complete loss of credibility and political support because of a scandal that led to impeachment, no control over Congress because of overwhelming majorities in the political opposition - a prerequisite for conviction in the Senate in an impeachment trial -, etc. Otherwise, it's death or losing after four years.

Presidents of the United States are not merely expected to govern with the support of Congress; they are expected by voters to dominate Congress in practice via the implementation of their political program as articulated in their campaign promises. Not exactly conducive to "checks and balances" between legislature and executive.

[Damocles]

Maybe not so much checks and balances, but bridging the gap between the branches in a congressional system. The President should have the privilege of commissioning a General Secretary and various Cabinet secretaries that form the core of the executive branch, who serve nominally at their pleasure - but they must be approved by a simple majority of the House of Representatives, who may require the President to revoke their commissions if they are not confident in the secretary in question, or the Cabinet in general.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

No, the presidency should not be this powerful. Presidents should serve with a sense of duty and not a power trip.