Full Version: Power of a President
Has the office of the President gained too much power?
The original intent designed into our government was to have the majority of the power and leadership in the Congress where it could best be tempered and prevented from ever allowing the affairs of the country to be dictated by the few or even a single individual.
Since the time of Roosevelt however the balance of power has definetly shifted to the Executive Branch--example the ability of the President to send military forces without the approval of the Congress, leaving them to either support or deny the action after the fact. the list of such actions dates back to at least Korea, Vietnam and has been used by both Clinton and Bush in the most recent examples.
Has the office of the President and the Executive branch gained to much power?
Should the powers of the President be reduced to the original intent of the Founders?
The original intent designed into our government was to have the majority of the power and leadership in the Congress where it could best be tempered and prevented from ever allowing the affairs of the country to be dictated by the few or even a single individual.
Since the time of Roosevelt however the balance of power has definetly shifted to the Executive Branch--example the ability of the President to send military forces without the approval of the Congress, leaving them to either support or deny the action after the fact. the list of such actions dates back to at least Korea, Vietnam and has been used by both Clinton and Bush in the most recent examples.
Has the office of the President and the Executive branch gained to much power?
Should the powers of the President be reduced to the original intent of the Founders?
Not to a single iota. The office has held true to its foundings and beginnings. The intent was not to make a single-governing entity- it was to have a system. Congress, the Presidential office and those of its capacity and the Supreme Court compose our three divisions of the break-up of power. They keep each other in check while trying to maintain balance and dignity within their own limitations. The office of President of the United States cannot grow beyond what the other two branches deem acceptable. While conspiracy theorists would deem the ruler supremely as being the President, or who knows what else, it simply is not true.
Power has not sprung to more than our Founder's intended, if examples of how can be provided I would consider changing my platform.
Can a President declare war without clearance from the Senate? Can a President appoint a cabinet member singularly without approval from Congress? Can a President decide what tax to impose without the authority of Senate? Can a President overturn a law unless mandated or supported by the Senate? No. A President cannot do any of these things because the office has maintained all original authority or acquired and practiced within limits the amendments passed to the capacity of the governing of that office.
So help if the Executive Branch has amassed too much power. The system of checks-and-balances provided by government has saved us from one branch becoming too powerful. The framers of our government prepared for very little, but they did outline checks-and-balances, and these state that one branch has the obligation to check the other to make sure that power was not gathered exclusively to one. Our Founder's knew war could emerge from support to one governing entity, they feared war after the country had just re-drawn the Articles of Confederation and was just massing an army and putting motions on a naval power. Our government has maintained all aspects that the Founder's directly prepared for or indirectly influenced.
Power has not sprung to more than our Founder's intended, if examples of how can be provided I would consider changing my platform.
Can a President declare war without clearance from the Senate? Can a President appoint a cabinet member singularly without approval from Congress? Can a President decide what tax to impose without the authority of Senate? Can a President overturn a law unless mandated or supported by the Senate? No. A President cannot do any of these things because the office has maintained all original authority or acquired and practiced within limits the amendments passed to the capacity of the governing of that office.
So help if the Executive Branch has amassed too much power. The system of checks-and-balances provided by government has saved us from one branch becoming too powerful. The framers of our government prepared for very little, but they did outline checks-and-balances, and these state that one branch has the obligation to check the other to make sure that power was not gathered exclusively to one. Our Founder's knew war could emerge from support to one governing entity, they feared war after the country had just re-drawn the Articles of Confederation and was just massing an army and putting motions on a naval power. Our government has maintained all aspects that the Founder's directly prepared for or indirectly influenced.
Christopher wrote:
How has Bush sent military forces without the approval of Congress? We went into Iraq with guns blazing because Congress (political cowards that they are) gave him authorization to go in. If you don't like that we are in Iraq -- you can't go back and blame the power of the presidency. That authorization was handed to him. And Kerry and Edwards were there at the forefront handing over the reigns of power. I found it ridiculous and hypocritical that Kerry and Edwards tried to have it both ways during the election. ANYONE who had half a brain could have seen that it was not a very good idea to hand over that kind of power to a president who was hell bent on invading Iraq.
QUOTE
Since the time of Roosevelt however the balance of power has definetly shifted to the Executive Branch--example the ability of the President to send military forces without the approval of the Congress, leaving them to either support or deny the action after the fact. the list of such actions dates back to at least Korea, Vietnam and has been used by both Clinton and Bush in the most recent examples
.How has Bush sent military forces without the approval of Congress? We went into Iraq with guns blazing because Congress (political cowards that they are) gave him authorization to go in. If you don't like that we are in Iraq -- you can't go back and blame the power of the presidency. That authorization was handed to him. And Kerry and Edwards were there at the forefront handing over the reigns of power. I found it ridiculous and hypocritical that Kerry and Edwards tried to have it both ways during the election. ANYONE who had half a brain could have seen that it was not a very good idea to hand over that kind of power to a president who was hell bent on invading Iraq.
Hayleyanne, Christopher was clearly making a non-partisan point; so I am baffled by your apparent indignation.
He also made a correct one. In the Constitution it clearly states that ONLY Congress can declare war. It seems pretty clear to me that the Framers intended for Congress to enter into hostilities because, unlike the Presidency, one person could not dominate policy so easily.
Yes, the President was authorized by Congress; and that is entirely the point. Congress surrendered what was supposed to be it's own jurisdiction. If that doesn't imply that the power of the Presidency has increased, I don't know what does.
He also made a correct one. In the Constitution it clearly states that ONLY Congress can declare war. It seems pretty clear to me that the Framers intended for Congress to enter into hostilities because, unlike the Presidency, one person could not dominate policy so easily.
Yes, the President was authorized by Congress; and that is entirely the point. Congress surrendered what was supposed to be it's own jurisdiction. If that doesn't imply that the power of the Presidency has increased, I don't know what does.
Ultimate Joe wrote:
That is crazy logic Joe! Just because Congress acted like cowards doesn't mean that the President's power has increased. I do not understand Christopher's post then. He cited Bush as part of an example of how the president's power has increased. All I can think of is the war in Iraq that he was referring to. But the President only went into Iraq AFTER Congress gave authorization. What am I missing? Your point seems to be that the President has this new found power because Congress rolled over. But that is not really a valid point, because-- if Congress had acted properly and NOT GIVEN authorization-- the President couldn't have done what he did. If Christopher's point is that Bush is "powerful" because he is getting Congress to do what he wants them to do and support his ultimate objectives-- ok. But that does not relate to the power of the "presidency" as a general matter. What am I missing here?
QUOTE
Yes, the President was authorized by Congress; and that is entirely the point. Congress surrendered what was supposed to be it's own jurisdiction. If that doesn't imply that the power of the Presidency has increased, I don't know what does.
That is crazy logic Joe! Just because Congress acted like cowards doesn't mean that the President's power has increased. I do not understand Christopher's post then. He cited Bush as part of an example of how the president's power has increased. All I can think of is the war in Iraq that he was referring to. But the President only went into Iraq AFTER Congress gave authorization. What am I missing? Your point seems to be that the President has this new found power because Congress rolled over. But that is not really a valid point, because-- if Congress had acted properly and NOT GIVEN authorization-- the President couldn't have done what he did. If Christopher's point is that Bush is "powerful" because he is getting Congress to do what he wants them to do and support his ultimate objectives-- ok. But that does not relate to the power of the "presidency" as a general matter. What am I missing here?
In reference to Bush and war power being increased over the will of congress is a no brainer and is simply mathematical. Bush has 0 $ to fund a war. Congress has as many dollars as he needs to fund a war. The congress is elected by 25% of the qualified voting constituency. And the president sells the war to 100% of their constituency. Then the Congress decides if their job is secure if they disagree with the president.
It is like the decision to buy a boat, with the dad saying hey look how much money we will save on seafood, and picture you in a bikini on the deck and the kids will love the skiing. When it is really a displacement of water caused by weight causing a hole in the water where you throw money into for something you could have did differently to accomplish the same darn thing..
It is like the decision to buy a boat, with the dad saying hey look how much money we will save on seafood, and picture you in a bikini on the deck and the kids will love the skiing. When it is really a displacement of water caused by weight causing a hole in the water where you throw money into for something you could have did differently to accomplish the same darn thing..
Has the office of the President and the Executive branch gained to much power?
No, the Constitution says, in Art. 2, Sec. 2:
'1. Military powers The President shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the durties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.'
These are the powers intended by the founding fathers, which still exist today.
Should the powers of the President be reduced to the original intent of the Founders?
The powers are that of the founders.
No, the Constitution says, in Art. 2, Sec. 2:
'1. Military powers The President shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the durties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.'
These are the powers intended by the founding fathers, which still exist today.
Should the powers of the President be reduced to the original intent of the Founders?
The powers are that of the founders.
Has the office of the President and the Executive branch gained to much power?
Actually, the power of the Presidency has been rising since Teddy Roosevelt decided to use the "bully pulpit" of the Presidency to actually propose bills to Congress.
Has it gained too much power? I think the Presidency is only as powerful as the man (or woman
) who occupies it. Certainly, weak Presidents make the office of President weak. Only a strong individual can work with an opposition Congress, in my opinion.
Of course, proposing legislation is outside of the Constitutional role of the President. Leading in such a way is not precisely in the Constitution. Nor is it specifically excluded by the Constitution.
Should the powers of the President be reduced to the original intent of the Founders?
What powers? The President has not (to my knowledge) exercised powers that were specifically outside of the Constitution. If you are talking about going to war in Iraq (or Afghanistan, for that matter), I think the burden of Congressional consent was met. The Constitution is not very specific about the language that needs to go into a "declaration of war".
Actually, the power of the Presidency has been rising since Teddy Roosevelt decided to use the "bully pulpit" of the Presidency to actually propose bills to Congress.
Has it gained too much power? I think the Presidency is only as powerful as the man (or woman
) who occupies it. Certainly, weak Presidents make the office of President weak. Only a strong individual can work with an opposition Congress, in my opinion.Of course, proposing legislation is outside of the Constitutional role of the President. Leading in such a way is not precisely in the Constitution. Nor is it specifically excluded by the Constitution.
Should the powers of the President be reduced to the original intent of the Founders?
What powers? The President has not (to my knowledge) exercised powers that were specifically outside of the Constitution. If you are talking about going to war in Iraq (or Afghanistan, for that matter), I think the burden of Congressional consent was met. The Constitution is not very specific about the language that needs to go into a "declaration of war".
QUOTE(Amlord @ Feb 3 2005, 04:01 PM)
Actually, the power of the Presidency has been rising since Teddy Roosevelt decided to use the "bully pulpit" of the Presidency to actually propose bills to Congress.
With the advent of television, then 24-hour-per-day cable news stations, the bully pulpit has become many times more powerful than in Theodore Roosevelt's day.
Before television, few would have seen the visual spectacle of people jumping to their feet and acting as if they were at a high school pep rally. I think at least 60 percent of our elected officials should seek employment at Jack in the Box.
One thing that television has brought is the orchestrated moment, like last night's. Joe Scarborough and Ron Reagan had quite different opinions about the matter.
QUOTE
REAGAN: Well, why don‘t we start with that incredible moment? And you and I kind of got into it, that very emotional moment.
<snip>
REAGAN: Where the parents of the Marine who was killed.
<snip>
REAGAN: That it just makes me personally a little uncomfortable to see people who are so—in such pain being sort of publicly displayed that way.
<snip>
SCARBOROUGH: Yes. You have got to be very careful with political moments like this. And, obviously, there was some staffer, I‘m sure, that put all these people together. But if it‘s not heartfelt by the president and by the participants, Americans can read through it. And that‘s when it really backfires.
<snip>
REAGAN: Where the parents of the Marine who was killed.
<snip>
REAGAN: That it just makes me personally a little uncomfortable to see people who are so—in such pain being sort of publicly displayed that way.
<snip>
SCARBOROUGH: Yes. You have got to be very careful with political moments like this. And, obviously, there was some staffer, I‘m sure, that put all these people together. But if it‘s not heartfelt by the president and by the participants, Americans can read through it. And that‘s when it really backfires.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6907479/
For better or worse, such moments ( a Maalox moment for me) strengthen the bully pulpit. I personally wish Presidents would return to Jefferson's practice of sending a written message to Congress.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Feb 3 2005, 05:01 PM)
Has the office of the President and the Executive branch gained to much power?
Actually, the power of the Presidency has been rising since Teddy Roosevelt decided to use the "bully pulpit" of the Presidency to actually propose bills to Congress.
Has it gained too much power? I think the Presidency is only as powerful as the man (or woman ) who occupies it. Certainly, weak Presidents make the office of President weak. Only a strong individual can work with an opposition Congress, in my opinion.
Of course, proposing legislation is outside of the Constitutional role of the President. Leading in such a way is not precisely in the Constitution. Nor is it specifically excluded by the Constitution.
Should the powers of the President be reduced to the original intent of the Founders?
What powers? The President has not (to my knowledge) exercised powers that were specifically outside of the Constitution. If you are talking about going to war in Iraq (or Afghanistan, for that matter), I think the burden of Congressional consent was met. The Constitution is not very specific about the language that needs to go into a "declaration of war".
Actually, the power of the Presidency has been rising since Teddy Roosevelt decided to use the "bully pulpit" of the Presidency to actually propose bills to Congress.
Has it gained too much power? I think the Presidency is only as powerful as the man (or woman
) who occupies it. Certainly, weak Presidents make the office of President weak. Only a strong individual can work with an opposition Congress, in my opinion.Of course, proposing legislation is outside of the Constitutional role of the President. Leading in such a way is not precisely in the Constitution. Nor is it specifically excluded by the Constitution.
Should the powers of the President be reduced to the original intent of the Founders?
What powers? The President has not (to my knowledge) exercised powers that were specifically outside of the Constitution. If you are talking about going to war in Iraq (or Afghanistan, for that matter), I think the burden of Congressional consent was met. The Constitution is not very specific about the language that needs to go into a "declaration of war".
Amlord, I think you hit it on the head when you say that the office of the Presidency is only as powerful as the man that occupies it. Of course, as you point out, an opposition party Congress can certainly frustrate the power of the presidency.
It seems that George Bush is a powerful president. It is surprising given the whole 2000 election situation. I don't think anyone expected him to be a powerful president. But he has proven to be. As the commentators keep saying, it is unusual for a president to take up a "cause" during his second term. But Bush certainly has done this with social security and I actually believe his perseverence on this issue will break the grid lock that seems to have paralyzed our government over the last 15 years or so.
I can't say that I agree with all of Bush's policies, particularly the war in Iraq. I do support the move to fix social security though. And even though I may not agree with all of the president's actions, I must say I believe that he will go down in history as one of the most powerful presidents. Very ironic.
Has the office of the President and the Executive branch gained to much power?
Well, no. The only group that I would say has too much power are lobbyists. In many ways, I think the branches are getting a bit confused. Occasionally, you have the executive branch behaving like the legislative branch.
As for Bush being powerful, I think that is an illusion generated by the people around him. What is ironic is that he will go down in history as being a powerful president when in fact he is a weak president with an extremely powerful machine behind him.
Well, no. The only group that I would say has too much power are lobbyists. In many ways, I think the branches are getting a bit confused. Occasionally, you have the executive branch behaving like the legislative branch.
As for Bush being powerful, I think that is an illusion generated by the people around him. What is ironic is that he will go down in history as being a powerful president when in fact he is a weak president with an extremely powerful machine behind him.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.