Does the position of President hold too much power/influence today?

[zendari]

Disclaimer: President does not refer to GWB, but Bush I, II, Clinton, and all modern day presidents.

Text

Interesting opinion piece. It seems to me like Congress was originally intended to be the main part of the government, given powers such as veto override. But nowadays, many members of congress are often subservent to the sitting president. The president, of course, has a great deal of influence in the courts by choosing its members, and at times court judges can be wary of retirement and their potential successors.

I'd personally say the position has grown well beyond its original intention and 1 man has more influence than he should.

 

[cwjerome]

I'd agree with you.

As the government has gorwn more interventionist and expanded it's role, the executive branch has grown tremendously, as have its powers.

As the world has become "smaller" global community/foreign affairs plays a bigger role today. Largely an executive role.

As media has grown, the "implicit" powers of the president have grown since one person is easier to focus on rather than a faceless group of 500+.

 

[Stunt]

I think power in the hands of a congress type body is far more effective as they work for their constituents and can debate amongst themselves on various issues. With one man at the helm and only two choices nationally (due to the EV system), democracy is seriously handicapped.

Too much power is my vote.

 

[johnnobts]

i think its pretty apparent that the president weilds far less power today than the office held 100 years ago. There's always this power struggle b/c the legistlative branch and the executive branch...

modern example with bush junior: the supreme court nomination. I think the legistlative branch (ok, some of the democrats) is reading way too much into the "advise and consent" clause in the constitution when it comes to the president's power to nominate a justice. I'm sure if it was a democratic president you'd have republican senators up in arms too...

I personally think the president should have more power, based on my understanding of the constitution. i'm worried that the office of the president will turn into little more than a figurehead, like the british monarchy, when all it will be good for is tabloid press. the framers established a three-branch govt. for a good reason, not a 2-branch system. and no (conjur), its not just b/c i happen to be a republican with a republican president currently occupying the office.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
i think its pretty apparent that the president weilds far less power today than the office held 100 years ago. There's always this power struggle b/c the legistlative branch and the executive branch...

modern example with bush junior: the supreme court nomination. I think the legistlative branch (ok, some of the democrats) is reading way too much into the "advise and consent" clause in the constitution when it comes to the president's power to nominate a justice. I'm sure if it was a democratic president you'd have republican senators up in arms too...

I personally think the president should have more power, based on my understanding of the constitution. i'm worried that the office of the president will turn into little more than a figurehead, like the british monarchy, when all it will be good for is tabloid press. the framers established a three-branch govt. for a good reason, not a 2-branch system. and no (conjur), its not just b/c i happen to be a republican with a republican president currently occupying the office.

based on my reading of the constitution, the legislature was intended to have the majority of the power. The president really is only supposed to be the executer (hence executive office) than a policy maker.

 

I think the president's power is pretty well-moderated, except in ONE AREA: declaration of war (in the modern day).

War should be declared by (and ONLY by) the Congress. The president has no business sending troops into battle without the clear and emphatic support of Congress. That support comes in only ONE form: the declaration of war.

I think the War Powers Resolution is the worst piece of legislation to come out of Congress in the last 50 years. It's taken a major constitutional power away from the legislators and put it in the hands of the president, and that is simply WRONG. Imagine if the War Powers Clause never existed: the Vietnam War might never have occurred. Same goes for the Iraq War.

Emergency incursions are sometimes necessary (Grenada, Haiti, etc.), but large scale troop deployments should NEVER come at the sole decision of the president. As commander-in-chief, he is responsible for troop assignments, NOT the decision to go to war.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: jumpr
I think the president's power is pretty well-moderated, except in ONE AREA: declaration of war (in the modern day).

War should be declared by (and ONLY by) the Congress. The president has no business sending troops into battle without the clear and emphatic support of Congress. That support comes in only ONE form: the declaration of war.

I think the War Powers Resolution is the worst piece of legislation to come out of Congress in the last 50 years. It's taken a major constitutional power away from the legislators and put it in the hands of the president, and that is simply WRONG. Imagine if the War Powers Clause never existed: the Vietnam War might never have occurred. Same goes for the Iraq War.

Emergency incursions are sometimes necessary (Grenada, Haiti, etc.), but large scale troop deployments should NEVER come at the sole decision of the president. As commander-in-chief, he is responsible for troop assignments, NOT the decision to go to war.

strnge, someone posted this in OT, perhaps it was you. I will check.

edit: It was!


Now this begs the question, Why did you post a political thread inspired by a P&n thread in offtopic

 

[zephyrprime]

The president has too much power but the real problem is that political parties have too much power. The branches of the government were meant to be checks on each others power but the framers didn't think deeply about the ramifications of party politics. When 1 party holds the executive and legislative branch, the country decends into the one party politics of so many second world nations.

 

[Moonsabie]

President?s power is very weak and was intentionally set up like that. but he does have greater power in global dealings. After all he is our representive on the wourld stage.

 

[eilute]

The office does not hold too much power, but it does appear that it has a little bit too much influence.

I'm not too sure how this might be fixed. I suppose that president should be forbidden to plant phony reporters at press conferences. That would hinder the president's ability to spread propaganda. It seems like the rest is up to the press and, possibly, the minority party.

 

[judasmachine]

The Congress is supposed to be more representative of the people (ie less removed) than the president, so the power should lie within. That being said a uni-party congress would be even more dangerous.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
The president has too much power but the real problem is that political parties have too much power. The branches of the government were meant to be checks on each others power but the framers didn't think deeply about the ramifications of party politics. When 1 party holds the executive and legislative branch, the country decends into the one party politics of so many second world nations.

Good observation. Heaven known I hope they never give a line item veto.

 

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: jumpr
I think the president's power is pretty well-moderated, except in ONE AREA: declaration of war (in the modern day).

War should be declared by (and ONLY by) the Congress. The president has no business sending troops into battle without the clear and emphatic support of Congress. That support comes in only ONE form: the declaration of war.

I think the War Powers Resolution is the worst piece of legislation to come out of Congress in the last 50 years. It's taken a major constitutional power away from the legislators and put it in the hands of the president, and that is simply WRONG. Imagine if the War Powers Clause never existed: the Vietnam War might never have occurred. Same goes for the Iraq War.

Emergency incursions are sometimes necessary (Grenada, Haiti, etc.), but large scale troop deployments should NEVER come at the sole decision of the president. As commander-in-chief, he is responsible for troop assignments, NOT the decision to go to war.

strnge, someone posted this in OT, perhaps it was you. I will check.

edit: It was!


Now this begs the question, Why did you post a political thread inspired by a P&n thread in offtopic

Because I wanted intelligent, apolitical responses.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: jumpr
I think the president's power is pretty well-moderated, except in ONE AREA: declaration of war (in the modern day).

War should be declared by (and ONLY by) the Congress. The president has no business sending troops into battle without the clear and emphatic support of Congress. That support comes in only ONE form: the declaration of war.

I think the War Powers Resolution is the worst piece of legislation to come out of Congress in the last 50 years. It's taken a major constitutional power away from the legislators and put it in the hands of the president, and that is simply WRONG. Imagine if the War Powers Clause never existed: the Vietnam War might never have occurred. Same goes for the Iraq War.

Emergency incursions are sometimes necessary (Grenada, Haiti, etc.), but large scale troop deployments should NEVER come at the sole decision of the president. As commander-in-chief, he is responsible for troop assignments, NOT the decision to go to war.

strnge, someone posted this in OT, perhaps it was you. I will check.

edit: It was!


Now this begs the question, Why did you post a political thread inspired by a P&n thread in offtopic

Amen, those swine coward politicians in the House and Senate abrogated their Constitutional duty to declare war because they feared their vote would cost votes and get them thrown out of office in the next election and thereby allowed the President to arrogate the power to make war killed thousands and thousands of our troops in the process.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
The president has too much power but the real problem is that political parties have too much power. The branches of the government were meant to be checks on each others power but the framers didn't think deeply about the ramifications of party politics. When 1 party holds the executive and legislative branch, the country decends into the one party politics of so many second world nations.

Ehhh... The parties may have too much power but representatives are elected individually. If there is a one party majority (like there is now - like there was in '92-'94 and many other times through our history) in all three branches it's because the electorate decided that's what they wanted. When the electorate decides they've had enough of the party in charge they can vote someone else in.

That in and of itself elevates us above 2nd world status.

Edit: Back on topic. I think the office of president is fully in check. Look at Dubbya and Bubba. Both have had single party rule and both have/had been shut down by congress on more than one occasion despite having that single party advantage.