Sure It says he is the C&C of the Armed Forces.
But America was established in a Post Monarchal Culture. Leader was not on the agenda.
I can't find a shread of evidence to support this "Leadership" notion politicians keep talking about.
His Oath of Office makes him the protecter of the Constitution. But Bush's actions places his duty as suspect.
2007-06-05 05:15:13 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The Constitution does everything it can to keep all of the power into the hands of one man or one branch of government. Bush does everything he can to do the exact opposite.
2007-06-05 05:18:11 · answer #1 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 1⤊ 6⤋
The constitution clearly outlines the powers of the 3 branches (the executive being one of the 3). The writers of the constitution understood that in some cases immediate decisions for action may have to be made and therefor put into the executive branch one person with advisers. In my opinion it has been the general population of the US that has created what we now see as an almost monarchical "democracy" (more in the way the government is seen than in the way it actually works). Just as the writers of the constitution had experienced no other federal government than one of a single ruler and had to create this democracy out of a combination of ideas and hope it would work, people today have a much easier time looking to one person (the president) than to a group of people (congress or the courts) to follow or to blame. In regards to Bush's actions, I can only guess that he has fallen into the same trap of believing himself to be more powerful than his station should allow. As the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, he does have the greatest power of the branches over the military, and that has been the what people talk most about in regards to his power or abuse thereof.
2007-06-05 12:34:06 · answer #2 · answered by Techiesrul19 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Constitution actually calls for a three-part from of government, with each component exercising 'checks and balances' over the other two. The president, as leader of the Executive branch, is given specific powers - entering into treaties, being the commander in chief, signing legislation passed by the congress etc. Congress, the legislative branch, in addition to passing laws, is empowered with ratifying treaties and declaring war, among many other things. The judicial branch, including the Supreme Court and lower courts, interprets laws and provides checks on presidential and congressional power.
Leadership by the president was, in fact, on the agenda and is a key component of the constitutional powers of the president. The president is charged with leading the day-to-day operations of the federal government - the executive departments (state, defense, treasury, and all the others). He is also responsible for creating and managing the federal budget.
The president, in addition to being the head of government, is constitutionally the 'head of state' - responsible for foreign affairs.
In all of these activities, even though the term 'leader' may not necessarily be included in the constition, he is expected to exert leadership on a daily basis.
The fact that the current sitting president may not necessarily meet your standards of a 'leader' (and doesn't meet mine, either), doesn't change the fact that the OFFICE of President of the United States is one that is inherently charged with leadership.
2007-06-05 12:25:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It doesn't say that. Bush continues to ignore the Popular Sovereignty as stated in the Preamble of the Constitution,, Which says that our government has been set up by the people, so that it can be responsive to them and protect their rights. All power to govern comes from the people, who are the highest power. In essence he does not care about the people who he is supposed to be working for.
2007-06-05 14:37:45 · answer #4 · answered by Sean 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The president IS the leader of the country. Just because you dont like Bush doesnt change the fact that the president has been, and always will be viewed as the leader of our country. When Clinton was president, he was the leader.
2007-06-05 12:23:37 · answer #5 · answered by Matt C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most presidents overreach their part in government in my opinion. I think most things should be left for the states and the federal government should have way less influence. And the president should just run the military and generally oversee the country.
2007-06-05 12:21:28 · answer #6 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The founders intended Congress to be the preeminent branch. They were leary of tyrants. For the first 100 years or so of our republic, the executive was little more than a "leader" of ceremonies.
2007-06-05 12:21:25 · answer #7 · answered by Muscat 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Beyond his constitutional duties, the President of the United States is a natural figure head. Therefore he/she is seen as a leader, but not legally so.
2007-06-05 12:20:33 · answer #8 · answered by Incognito 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I know it is confusing but do it like me- Wikipedia is my main source of information. I call it Albertopedia- a trade mark! That's where I go when I want to look for knowledge or to CREATE some. HAHAHAHA
Barney says "you have to know the law in order to break it."
I think he is right. His small head is just filled with magnificent knolej (I can write it like that if I desire- as AG that's my right)
2007-06-05 12:23:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe that Commander and Chief of the military is a leadership position.
2007-06-05 12:19:24 · answer #10 · answered by Brian 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
You're right.
He should be redubbed the "Poll Result watcher" or "keeper of the Polls."
He should have a direct feed from the pollsters sites and lead accordingly.
Oh wait, not lead...
What's he supposed to do again???
2007-06-05 12:20:48 · answer #11 · answered by Philip McCrevice 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋