As in taking away his Foreign Policy Powers to start wars ? Let the President on concern himself with Domestic affairs, Congress could appoint a person to look out for Foreign affairs. That way if we are in a unpoular war we can get out by Congress can just fire him. And Congress could only blame themselves when we get into a War. It would stop so much whining in Politics, What do you think ?
2007-03-25 12:23:53 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I know there is a Constitution. But no one seems to follow it.
2007-03-25 12:34:14 · update #1
That's like saying "Do you think we should follow the Constitution?" The President has no power to make laws. Bureaucracies have no power to make laws (thus the FCC, FTC, IRS, FDA, EPA, and the million other agencies regulations are not laws).
Congress must declare war to go to war. Congress must pass laws. The President's powers are extremely limited under the Constitution.
Congress can impeach the president and every president since Grover Cleveland would be guilty of impeachable offenses.
Unless we stop electing morons to office by voting for an "electable" candidate (which is a label the media gives to those candidates that aren't worth voting for 99.9% of the time), we won't fix anything.
2007-03-25 13:25:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you read the Constitution, you would realize that it is the reverse. The President is supposed to head foreign affairs, while the Congress is elected the deal with domestic affairs. The Senate deals with inter- and intra-state affairs, while the House of Reps deals on an even smaller scale. It is the Congress whose foreign powers should be more limited.
Furthermore, the Congress DOES have the power to "just fire him." It's called the impeachment process. Unfortunately, unpopularity is not a good reason to fire the President. He has to be doing something explicitly wrong, and so far, even the democratic majority hasn't been able to come up with something worthy of impeaching over.
What's more is that the Congress already have themselves to blame for the war. The President's Constitutional powers only grant him the ability to fight a war for two months without Congressional approval. We would have been out of Iraq years ago if not for Congress.
2007-03-25 19:36:39 · answer #2 · answered by Bobby S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that is why they have three branches of government.
The President is responsible for the military and is the Commander in Chief. The constitution allows the president to send troops anywhere in the world.
The Legislative branch (Congress), controls the money, so if they don't want the president to continue, then all they have to do is stop the funding and the military will have to bring it's members back.
2007-03-25 19:32:43 · answer #3 · answered by Little J 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The way it works, the president can't start a war without the consent of congress. He can use troops as he deems necessary for up to six months without approval of congress, for emergencies that come along during the many breaks congress takes every year.
The problem is, people today can't tell the difference between popularity and purpose. Spanking kids is unpopular, not just with parents, but with kids too, but there are a lot of kids who need one desperately. As a soldier, I hate war because of what it does to me and my friends. But I recognize it's need, and I also recognize what quitting will do to us in the wider world if we quit in the middle.
2007-03-25 19:43:15 · answer #4 · answered by Curtis B 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
And the president doesn't issue a declaration of war.
Although the president can send troops over to battle, how long will that last if Congress doesn't issue a declaration of war and fund the troops?
And saying that no one follows the constitution is a bold statement. If somethings suspected to be unconstitutional, a court case usually arises out of it.
2007-03-25 19:37:45 · answer #5 · answered by trin 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They ARE limited, if you read the Constitution.
Problem is, no one really has the power to stop him, so the Constitution's words don't mean a lot.
2007-03-25 19:27:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No way. I really don't see the point of having a President if you want all of that!
2007-03-25 19:31:13 · answer #7 · answered by BAARAAACK 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Apparently they don't teach you kids(for the sake of humanity,i hope you are a kid)anything about the constitution any more? The president didn't start the war anyway.TERRORISTS DID !!
2007-03-25 19:32:43 · answer #8 · answered by SEA HAG 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If you knew what you were talking abt, then you would know that they already are limited.
2007-03-25 19:32:19 · answer #9 · answered by Katz 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely not.
2007-03-25 19:29:55 · answer #10 · answered by vegaswoman 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋