How do you like having power centralized in one person?

[Anarchist420]

I hate it especially when one person can become President with an absolute majority of the vote.

I see no good reason as to why a council of executives isn't better.

 

[jstern01]

 

[hal2kilo]

Only if it's me.

 

[HumblePie]

I am your Space Lord mutha fu...

 

[IronWing]

I for one welcome our popularly elected, wait, what? OP, you flunk College.

 

[tcG]

I agree that it makes no sense. Why not have the power more democratically distributed by having an executive council?

Having an entire branch of government controlled by one person, a seemingly undemocratic arrangement, was one of the objections to the then new Constitution by the anti-federalists. A presidency that has since become far more authoritarian and active (executive orders, signing statements, etc.) is even more undemocratic.

 

[IronWing]

I agree that it makes no sense. Why not have the power more democratically distributed by having an executive council?

Having an entire branch of government controlled by one person, a seemingly undemocratic arrangement, was one of the objections to the then new Constitution by the anti-federalists. A presidency that has since become far more authoritarian and active (executive orders, signing statements, etc.) is even more undemocratic.

A President can only overreach his constitutional role if Congress allows it. Unfortunately we are in an era when Congress would rather the President assume powers reserved to Congress. Congress is more than a bit craven these days.

 

[jstern01]

Try governing by council.. hell take a look at congress there is your council type arrangement.

We have a system of checks and balances. If one branch is going to abrogate their duties, then something has to fill the vacuum. The age of the imperial presidency has been going on for awhile. We are just more cognizant then in the past.

 

[Incorruptible]

Good point OP, obama has far too much power and this is incredibly dangerous for liberty. Centralized power is not good at all and this clearly shows why Ron Paul should be president and not the crap we have now.

 

[nehalem256]

I see no good reason as to why a council of executives isn't better.

(1) How would that be any different than the Senate or House of Representatives?

(2) Consider that the President is tasked to be Commander in Chief of the military. You don't see why it makes sense to not have a council tasked with this power?

 

[IronWing]

Good point OP, obama has far too much power and this is incredibly dangerous for liberty. Centralized power is not good at all and this clearly shows why Ron Paul should be president and not the crap we have now.

How would changing Presidents be of benefit when the problem is an irresponsible Congress?

 

[mizzou]

I thought Obama didn't accomplish anything, now he accomplishes everything by the rule of a tyrant fist?

 

[nehalem256]

How would changing Presidents be of benefit when the problem is an irresponsible Congress?

Because Ron Paul is crazy enough it would compel congress to put a stop the executive power grab? :sneaky:

 

[rudder]

Try governing by council.. hell take a look at congress there is your council type arrangement.

People think nothing gets accomplished now... add that mess to another 1/3 of our government. Not to mention the economy tanking because lobbyists will have to spend that much more money to get the votes they want.

 

[Anarchist420]

(1) How would that be any different than the Senate or House of Representatives? (2) Consider that the President is tasked to be Commander in Chief of the military. You don't see why it makes sense to not have a council tasked with this power?

There wouldn't be a standing army unless war was declared by >=2/3 of the States and the commander in chief would be chosen and controlled by >=2/3 of the Executives when >=2/3 of the States chose to allow them to pick a commander in chief. ; the executive council wouldn't actually command the military they'd just choose and direct the commander in chief.

>=2/3 of the States would be required for someone to be part of the executive council or to be removed from it.

 

[ShintaiDK]

This thread is lulz. OP cant be serious, if serious..seek help.

 

[SMOGZINN]

There wouldn't be a standing army unless war was declared by >=2/3 of the States and the commander in chief would be chosen and controlled by >=2/3 of the Executives when >=2/3 of the States chose to allow them to pick a commander in chief. ; the executive council wouldn't actually command the military they'd just choose and direct the commander in chief.

>=2/3 of the States would be required for someone to be part of the executive council or to be removed from it.

A standing military is pretty much required in a time when a military can launch an assault in hours. Your method would have us take weeks or longer to even decide if we are going to call up an army. Then your army would be untrained. You think you can put a 747 pilot in a jet fighter and be successful? Many of the tools of modern war require a full time commitment to learn to operate.

 

[MayorOfAmerica]

Looks like Anarchist and Incorruptible are out on an elephant walk again.

 

[Muse]

How do you like having power centralized in one person?

I don't like it. I'm very anti authoritarian. As the saying goes, "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Memorable, in fact hard to forget. I've always distrusted authority figures and have tried my best to avoid them.

 

[Muse]

Good point OP, obama has far too much power and this is incredibly dangerous for liberty. Centralized power is not good at all and this clearly shows why Ron Paul should be president and not the crap we have now.

Dude, you're a nut. The federal government has concentrations of power, it's built into the system. At least the central people are elected. Obvously, it's impossible to elect everybody. I think your name should be Incorrigible.

 

[UberNeuman]

Looks like Anarchist and Incorruptible are out on an elephant walk again.

 

[Gunslinger08]

I don't think the executive branch would work very well with a board as the head. The President is ultimately the one who has to make snap decisions in a lot of cases. Imagine having a board of people who each had their own advisors and every decision required a vote. It would basically be Congress. Would you want something like Congress making decisions on special operations deployments? It would take 6 months to give the go ahead and it would be leaked to 5 media outlets.

 

[ivwshane]

Good point OP, obama has far too much power and this is incredibly dangerous for liberty. Centralized power is not good at all and this clearly shows why Ron Paul should be president and not the crap we have now.

Lol! Let me see if I understand this fucking moron: you say that centralized power like the president isn't good but having a different president is ok.

Which is it? You either believe the president has too much power or you don't. Sounds like another one of your, "my team is better than your team" posts.

 

[Agent11]

The president has hardly any power.

Congress and the Senate have all the real power. They pass legislation, they fund things.

What can the president do? He can veto, but this can be circumvented by a majority. He can pass an executive order telling the executive branch how to implement things....But ultimately they are bound to legislation, and at the mercy of funding.

Stop being so willfully ignorant.

 

[Hyraxxx]

Lol! Let me see if I understand this fucking moron: you say that centralized power like the president isn't good but having a different president is ok.

Which is it? You either believe the president has too much power or you don't. Sounds like another one of your, "my team is better than your team" posts.

Ron Paul is like Frodo to him.