2007-02-28 01:25:27 · 12 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
To clarify for those who apparently don't understand... I am not asking if there ARE currently limits... I am asking whether there SHOULD be.
Intelligent people will know the difference.
2007-02-28 01:34:04 · update #1
phxfet: "My" president? I have the same President you do. I wasn't asking about a SPECIFIC President; I was referring to the office generally.
Intelligent people will understand that and stop trying to read ulterior motives into this question. It is a GENERAL question for which I am asking for a GENERAL response. I'm not talking about Bush; I'm talking about his office. Period.
2007-02-28 01:42:05 · update #2
Yes and unfortunately Congress has let Bush Usurp powers that belong to them (and us)!
How do we keep a system of checks and balances when the re pubs are nothing more that rubber stamps for the president! They pass laws they know are unconstitutional figuring it will be a decade or so before the Supreme gets a hold of them! Over 800 signing statements. Bush is a Fascist!
2007-02-28 01:40:31 · answer #1 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The U.S. Constitution limits and defines the powers of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government.
I would think really hard about changing these powers, especially when the reason for changing them is not for the better meant of the constitution but rather the like or dislike of a particular President.
The Constitution has guided us for a along time and has done us good, we need to quite messing with it and focus on getting someone to run for office that is worth voting for. And not a product of the political established elite on either side of the fence.
2007-02-28 09:36:31 · answer #2 · answered by DeSaxe 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The term powers is actually defined as constitutional powers meaning that whatever he does has to be under the purview of the constitution.However in special cases such a security certain limits may be waived off.
I personally feel that the present leash on powers is correct & should stay that way.
2007-02-28 09:33:49 · answer #3 · answered by pinu 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Intelligent people do understand your question and you answered it with the first part. Perhaps the word "new" on limits would have been better. But... I supspect, that when your president is in office you would consider these limitations that you want intrusive.
2007-02-28 09:37:43 · answer #4 · answered by phxfet 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course. We are beholden to the Constitution of the US, it calls for a separation of powers. 3 equal branches, so that power is equally distributed. To put too much power in the hands of the executive branch would be the same as living in a dictatorship.
2007-02-28 09:31:46 · answer #5 · answered by CelticPixie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
of course there should be limits on presidential power. otherwise, this country would be no better than a dictatorship. the founding fathers were very aware of this when they divided the government into three separate but equal branches in order to provide checks and balances on each branch's ability to affect policy.
2007-02-28 09:52:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. The current president should be the example they use to justify any new checks and balances. No more oligarchies!
2007-02-28 09:49:37 · answer #7 · answered by Garth Rocket 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a limit to his power if the Senate and House can agree to vote against his policies. But lets face it, the govenment is so partisan that agreeing on anything is impossible.
2007-02-28 09:32:27 · answer #8 · answered by Lee R 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Chimps handers keep a pretty tight leash on him to begin with. So a better question is how much power should come from the executive branch.
2007-02-28 09:28:26 · answer #9 · answered by Wet Kitty 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Obviously. Think of what the Decider would have done if there weren't any.
2007-02-28 09:37:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋