U.S. Presidents have been given a lot of power and have misused it in history. Do we really need a President?

Question

Giving one person Power is like allowing a dictator to rule the many and have everything be seen his/her way. They represent the party that they are mostly affiliated with and majority of the time, neglect the populace at large. I know I wouldn't want to give power to just one person. That's political suicide!

Answer 1

How true this is and I for one believe that every president we've ever had has only gotten worse with each one and now we are literally stuck with what I believe is the worst one yet.
The one in office now is so power hungry that the world is waiting to see what new trouble he can come up with and how many lives will be taken because of the power rush he gets.
I believe that is we continue to allow only one person to rule this country we will be known as the "late" U.S.A. and I'm not ready for that yet.
I believe that no one person has the right to rule over anyone much less the whole country. There should be no less then 7-9 persons who should listen to all the people before making any one discussion regarding everything and no to make a move unless the country has spoken first.
To allow just one person to "rule" this country any longer is as you said "political suicide" for all and not just for this country but for the whole world too.

Answer 2

We need a stronger, bipartisan or Democrat controlled Congress to take back some of the power that has been stolen from it.

The point of the Constitution was that the legislature and judiciary would check or limit the power of the executive. The legislature was originally the most powerful branch, but Presidents grabbed more power as time went on, particularly in the 20th century. Bush has grabbed even more and his Republican controlled legislature is a rubber stamp for many of the administration's policies and goals. The balance between the 3 branches has been greatly upset, but he has signed hundreds of these statements.

Bush also follows a neocon theory called the unitary executive, another power grab. One illustration is where he disagrees with legislation he will issue a "signing statement" when he signs it into law which states that he will not abide by the law as written. This happened most famously with the anti-torture legislation last year.

The problem is not with the Presidency or the powers that were given to the office by the Constitution, it's with how the balance has gone way out of kilter.

Answer 3

Yes, we do need a president, but we don't need presidents like George W. Bush. However, the system will go corrupt eventually, government systems are never fair, U.S. is one of the fairest. I say we just make a big house like the white house into a place where people of the U.S. vote for what to do, and people in the congress and other government-related jobs would count for... Say.. 5 people? If we don't do that, we could select 25 people to vote for what to do in a presidential decision, and they could run for only 3 years at tops. That would be better than using the previous system I came up with, because most likely the citizens would vote for whatever saves their asses. So, in my opinion, we don't need a president, we need president((S)) in our government. The system fails, even if the president doesn't get total rule. Once a choice is selected from those 25 people, we could use say.. 3-5 tacticsmen to plan HOW they are going to do it, and they all live in different parts that are evenly seperated in the country.

The reason I chose 25 people, is because they cant just ALL go corrupt, plus, the voting will most likely be even in that situation. And if its a tie from to or more situations (if possible.) THEN we could put it in the hands of citizens.

The point of the seperation of tacticsmen is because in some decisions it effect different parts of the U.S. Negatively.

The legislative branch actually had more power, and the system went great, but things are different now.

P.S. All we can really hope for is for U.K. to start making armies and march their asses over here and demand that we get a better system, but they ARE peacekeepers.

Answer 4

Yes. We need a president. The executive branch can act at an instant, While congress and the supreme court can take months, sometimes years to make a decision.
Apresident is needed, especially at times of war like we are now. The current president is getting accused of abusing his powers because we are listening in on phone calls coming from suspect countries. People need to be reminded that during WWII FDR rounded up Japanese, German, and Italian Americans and put them in internment camps. He rationed gasoline and other commodoties to the American people, and I have in my possesion letters from my grandfather to my grandmother that were rewritten in someone else's hand because all the mail coming from him was monitered. All these things were nessesary for us to win the war and survive.

Answer 5

That is why there are 3 branches of the government. They keep each other in ballance. The executive, the legislative, and the judicial.

People think the President does everything. In fact the other 2 are allowing it or it wouldn't happen.

Answer 6

I believe we do. The original framers of the constitution created a system of checks and balances (three branches) to keep govt in check. Their main reason was to limit the federal govt. Government has only gotten bigger and I believe elections are bought and paid for by 'elitist' candidates--JFK's daddy opened the purse strings and JFK himself courted the mafia for support.........."landslide" LBJ is known to have stolen his first election by buying off election officials and judges.

We need campaign reform to prevent the 'better funded' candidate from winning as opposed to 'better candidate'--from congress on up. Then--let's hold those who abuse power accountable - no pardons for abusing the nation's trust.

Answer 7

We need if we want to destroy ourseve day by day. LoL. And me or you cant destroy our country except a President and his great policy of torturing,dominating intusion,and showing the big-brother mentality to the countries.And one day none will care us.We will be destroyed by the economics.

Answer 8

We need a President. We just don't need elitists as Presidents.

Answer 9

i guess you could say its a stereotype.....people need someone to follow.....i disagree with this but marx said if there was no belief in god then we would create a belief simply to rely on someone.......

Answer 10

Well then,
let's have a queen.

*Queen Grumpy has a ring to it :)