Is the office of president really necessary?

[rambone]

I've thought about this before but I want to see what other people think about it.

Is the office of "President of the United States" (as we now know it) really necessary?

I think the President has entirely too much power. Granted, some of it is unconstitutional power. Why should his signature trump the will of both branches of Congress? Isn't that drastically too much concentrated power in one man's hands?



- The position of "President" should essentially be what the Speaker of the House is, with more spokesman duties. He should have some influence over what bills get voted on, but not such tremendous control over blocking bills.

- Wars would be entirely controlled by Congress. One man should not have the power that he does.

- Executive orders should not exist.

- No longer should he be known as "the most powerful man in the world." His one vote should count no more than the rest of the congress.

- For speaking & negotiating purposes, he still should be the face of Congress.



What would be the drawbacks to such a system?

 

[rambone]

Under such a system we wouldn't have to worry about a "lame duck" session of congress, where the majority may wish to repeal a bill (health care) and yet the President may block the entire congress from removing it.

 

[Fletch]

 

[rambone]

LOL. Come on now, Fletch, I thought you had expressed something similar a while ago.

 

[Fletch]

LOL. Come on now, Fletch, I thought you had expressed something similar a while ago.

I'm definitely not a fan of the Imperial Presidency, but there are plenty who are, and the discussion never seems to go anywhere good. Might as well just fast forward to the Colbert-esque "why do you hate America?"

Republicans are big fans of Rules and Order. I imagine that the best way to describe the Republican notion of the presidency is "pack alpha" (the mind flashes to Dennis Hopper jerking a thumb at his own chest, saying "Guy. In. Charge."). To other canids, the idea of a pack without an alpha is too horrible to contemplate. "How would anything ever get done?" And so forth.

The Democrat version of the presidency seems to be "Mr. Mom". The national protector and nurturer. He helps us up when we get a boo-boo, blows on our skinned knees, and finds us a band-aid.

 

[rambone]

In that case, I like where this thread is going too...




I think I have ruffled quite a few feathers around here lol.

 

[mrjarrell]

If the presidency worked as it was supposed to, and congress had not abrogated their responsibilities in a rush to anoint kings, I might agree with the republicrats. As it is, there's just too much power vested in the presidency. When it serves as a check and balance it can be a good thing. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case for decades and it's unlikely to be the case anytime soon (unless we get lucky and a libertarian is elected to the office). Maybe congress should just defund the executive branch and see what happens.

 

[SavageEagle]

I think if we could just eliminate EOs, take away the power to appoint czars, cancel all federal agencies besides the FBI and CIA, reduce those two agencies powers to basic functions (last two would equal less power in the executive branch), and hold that office and the offices under him to VERY high scrutiny and have an easier way to impeach for failure to uphold their oaths.....

Yea, I could be down with that.

I do think we need the President though. He's the face of the Nation as opposed to 500 faces. I don't like the ability to declare Martial Law at a whim, but I do think the military needs a top guy to make the tough decisions during war and peace. The POTUS serves critical functions that would get bogged down and take way too long if left up to Congress.

I mean, if Mexico is invading us through Texas, would you want to have to wait for Congress to gather and discuss it first before defending the Country?

Also, wouldn't it be the same as abolishing the office of State Governor?

I'm not saying it would be completely bad, but I don't think it would be good either. Just my own personal thoughts, but if you can convince me that abolishing the POTUS would work and be a good idea, by all mean, I'm all ears.

 

[dross]

How and why would you get rid of executive orders? The president is the head of the executive branch and has to be able to run it. If he issues an order that exceeds his authority, the other two branches of the government may nullify it.

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

[SavageEagle]

How and why would you get rid of executive orders? The president is the head of the executive branch and has to be able to run it. If he issues an order that exceeds his authority, the other two branches of the government may nullify it.

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

How can the other two branches nullify something classified Top Secret? They can't do it by committee, it would have to be the whole body in Congress. And if the Judicial Branch had clearance, why haven't they overturned a thousand orders? Have they ever overturned ANY?

 

[rambone]

I do think we need the President though. He's the face of the Nation as opposed to 500 faces.

I still think somebody should be called "the president" and make speeches and meet with other Heads of State. Just mainly I think veto power is a bit much. His "face of the nation" role is still there, but with less sweeping power.

I don't like the ability to declare Martial Law at a whim, but I do think the military needs a top guy to make the tough decisions during war and peace. The POTUS serves critical functions that would get bogged down and take way too long if left up to Congress.

I mean, if Mexico is invading us through Texas, would you want to have to wait for Congress to gather and discuss it first before defending the Country?

National guard? Militia? Generals?

Also, wouldn't it be the same as abolishing the office of State Governor?

I think I'd leave the states alone.

How and why would you get rid of executive orders? The president is the head of the executive branch and has to be able to run it. If he issues an order that exceeds his authority, the other two branches of the government may nullify it.

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Maybe that's true. I think all of the EO's I ever hear about are the worst of the worst. I'm still not 100% convinced that those orders can't be a congressional function. A lot of the Executive Branch shouldn't even exist.

 

[SavageEagle]

I still think somebody should be called "the president" and make speeches and meet with other Heads of State. Just mainly I think veto power is a bit much. His "face of the nation" role is still there, but with less sweeping power.

That's kinda what I was thinking.

National guard? Militia? Generals?

I was just saying that there needs to be one top guy/gal responsible and accountable for his/her decisions regarding matters of war and the military. If you give it to a General, he gains a LOT of power and does not answer to The People for his actions.

I think I'd leave the states alone.

I was just making the point that Governors are the same as the POTUS, just on a smaller scale. To do away with one, would mean doing away with another. Otherwise the whole system is thrown off balance. At least in my mind.

Maybe that's true. I think all of the EO's I ever hear about are the worst of the worst. I'm still not 100% convinced that those orders can't be a congressional function. A lot of the Executive Branch shouldn't even exist.

Very true, much of the Exe. Branch shouldn't exist. It's gone beyond it's Constitutional limits.

 

[cgbills]

The framers of the constitution saw the presedent nessicary enough to write the office in there

 

[rambone]

The framers of the constitution saw the presedent nessicary enoug to write the office in there

I'm just soundboarding with you guys. I'm not really committed to the idea yet. Just seeing what everybody thought.

 

[88GT]

I've thought about this before but I want to see what other people think about it.

Is the office of "President of the United States" (as we now know it) really necessary?

I think the President has entirely too much power. Granted, some of it is unconstitutional power.

Is it a criticism of the Office of the Presidency that the humans that have occupied it have perverted it so far from the original intent of the framers?

Why should his signature trump the will of both branches of Congress? Isn't that drastically too much concentrated power in one man's hands?

Did you forget that the Constitution specifically allows for an override to the veto? Besides, given the drunken-sailor spending based on a bare majority vote these last 10 years, it would have been kind of nice to have a CiC willing to ink his John Hancock on the "Hell NO" column (or however it's officially done).

- The position of "President" should essentially be what the Speaker of the House is, with more spokesman duties. He should have some influence over what bills get voted on, but not such tremendous control over blocking bills.

A president operating strictly within the guidelines of the Constitution would be just this, nothing more, nothing less.

- Wars would be entirely controlled by Congress. One man should not have the power that he does.

Bad idea. Committees don't prosecute wars well.

- Executive orders should not exist.

EOs are the administrative regulations for running the Executive Office. That a few presidents have over-stepped that boundary and used them for other purposes doesn't change their purpose or legitimacy.

- No longer should he be known as "the most powerful man in the world." His one vote should count no more than the rest of the congress.

C'mon. That's a stretch. The title isn't granted because people really think of him as the all-powerful Wizard of Oz. It's because he's the Head of State of the "most powerful" nation on earth. Seriously. Do you really think Michelle Obama has any personal power? Yet she was listed as the most powerful woman on earth. Why? Because she's married to the "most powerful man."

- For speaking & negotiating purposes, he still should be the face of Congress.

Can't argue there, but the framers were pretty clear about the role of the Executive as well.

What would be the drawbacks to such a system?

You mean not having a clear and identifiable head of state? I don't know. What would be the drawbacks to a ship not having a captain and relying on the midshipmen to make all the decisions?

 

[rambone]

C'mon. That's a stretch. The title isn't granted because people really think of him as the all-powerful Wizard of Oz. It's because he's the Head of State of the "most powerful" nation on earth. Seriously. Do you really think Michelle Obama has any personal power? Yet she was listed as the most powerful woman on earth. Why? Because she's married to the "most powerful man."

Well honestly that kind of backs up the absurdity of the power of that office. Nobody would be worshiping the spouse of the President in this "Spokesman President" idea.

You mean not having a clear and identifiable head of state? I don't know. What would be the drawbacks to a ship not having a captain and relying on the midshipmen to make all the decisions?

No, in my idea, I still want there to be a "President." But he is the leader of Congress and receives one vote just like the rest of them. He is still the guy that speaks for the nation. He just gets a lot less power.

 

[88GT]

Well honestly that kind of backs up the absurdity of the power of that office. Nobody would be worshiping the spouse of the President in this "Spokesman President" idea.

Hardly. It bespeaks to the absurdity of the world's fascination with celebrities.

No, in my idea, I still want there to be a "President." But he is the leader of Congress and receives one vote just like the rest of them. He is still the guy that speaks for the nation. He just gets a lot less power.

What power would you take from him that he isn't supposed to have?

There are two issues here and I can't tell if you're arguing that the current powers of the Office of the Prez are the problem precisely because they exceed their scope or if the actual intended standard as set by the framers is the problem.

 

[rambone]

What power would you take from him that he isn't supposed to have?

Primarily I was thinking (constitutional) veto power and (unconstitutional) war-making power.

There are two issues here and I can't tell if you're arguing that the current powers of the Office of the Prez are the problem precisely because they exceed their scope or if the actual intended standard as set by the framers is the problem.

If the office retained its original powers we wouldn't be having this conversation. But "the president" has incrementally taken various powers, set precedents, & broken ground that cannot be taken back. Which leads me to the line of thinking that maybe it was too much concentrated power to begin with.

 

[ATOMonkey]

We have removed soooooooooo many of the original checks and balances in the name of "getting things done" aka usurping power from the electorate.

It used to be that you would vote for 5 or 6 guys for president. The one with the most votes would be POTUS, and the guy with the second most votes would be VPOTUS and President of the Senate (which used to mean something).

The Senate was elected by the State Legislature, putting additional checks on Federal Power.

Now, we elect a President and Vice president together, so they can strong arm the senate, which is now popularly elected and has no desire to stand for State's Rights, and then rubber stamp legislation when it comes to the President's desk.

All in the name of "progress." We have a finely oiled machine in DC that jams reams and reams of useless and tyranical legislation through every year. Then they sit back and crow about all the hard work they did.

Forgive me if I don't stand and applaud.

 

[ATOMonkey]

BTW, Rambone's idea sounds a LOT like Parliment.