Do you think the president should have so much power?

Question

In all seriousness, what sense does it make for a democracy to vest this much power in the hands of a single person? So long as the Congress passes a law that passes constitutional muster, why should the president be able to say no? (And, by implication, allow a minority, rather than a majority, dictate national policy.)

Answer 1

Haven't you ever heard of 'Checks and Balances?" The President is not a dictator, and I think you're overlooking the rather obvious fact that there are many things the President cannot do without the consent of Congress, and guess what ... Congress has approved virtually all of President Bush's actions domestically and internationally (both when it was controlled by Republicans, and, more recently, by Democrats).

We live in a Representative Democracy ... meaning we elect people to represent us, and act in our interest. Every time there is a decision to be made we don't have 360 million people casting ballots ... it is purely to make the system more efficient. If you don't like what your representative has done then you don't vote for them in the next election ... its as simple as that.

Answer 2

No the president should have very limited amounts of power, and the congress should possess the majority of power in the relationship. The President is only needed as a check on the legislative branch beyond the role of foreign policy maker and military commander and chief. "What all agree upon is probably right; what no two agree in most probably is wrong."-Thomas Jefferson. There are certain sorts of decisions which the president must make, but legislating should be left primarily to the congress which contains the voice of many and a voice that better represents the populace. That is why I strictly oppose the proposition of the line item veto, and feel the presidency now holds far to much power. Most Presidents over the history of our country have had their battles with congress, but usually they end up compromising on what ends up being good legislation. Our current President is unwilling to do so however and has pulled power from the congress the position wasn't meant to hold through those terrible protection from terrorism acts that do little for us or serve any purpose beyond weakening the Constitution.

Answer 3

You specify that the law must pas Consitutional muster, yet you would deny the President a power granted him under that same Constitution?

The puropse of the Veto is to give the President a voice in the laws that are passed. He can only suggest laws to Congress. he cannot submit or sponsor bills and he cannot make law, yet he's responsible for enforcing the lwas once passed.

If the bill vetoed is the will of a large enough majority, the veto will be overturned. It's been a good enough check and balance system for 218 years. Why would you change it now?

Answer 4

Simple, you can come up with all your demographics, all your opinions, all the kook answers, all the facts, figures, science you want. This is what America calls diversity, and in that diversity, you will find a million different answers. Or perhaps narrow it down to a few dozen answers at least with alot of different details.
Either way, the President is the leader. Just as the captain of a ship. He will hear from the political fense sitters that tell him the ramnifications, he will hear from engineering who should tell him what's possible, he will bend an ear to hear what science has to say to know what's even possible. All should have a voice...yes...even the kooks...because they really don't contribute alot to America...but...once in a while its a kook that gives an "out of the box" answer that just might work.
BUT
in the end, the leader has to weigh all the inputs and come up with a plan of action. He has to take what he's been told and determine which path to take.....hopefully based on the correct notion that it is for the Citizens of this great nation that he will be taking down that path with him.
Now aside form people all having a forum to discuss their concerns and such, too many people in America have become spoiled to the point that they think they should personally have the Presidents ear, or think they have the right to throw a hissy fit just because their advice wasn't utilitzed.
The immature , impatient and political badgers have taken up too much time and elevated their role in the process as more important than it really is.
You had your say, now grin and bear it. The leader...the President has made the decision. It doesn't help to be one of the disgruntle, murmurring multitudes afterwards. It might discredit what you might have to say next time you get to offer an opinion.
Besides, personally, I find people's recollection of what their own party members did or said very poor and hardly anyone (percentage wise) seems to know much about history and apply what we have learned as a country in the past to what is going on now.

Answer 5

He needs "no much" power as in this goon in particular--NONE---We've got sooo much time yet to deal with this criminal conspiracy----I wouldn't delegate half the illegal traits this Administration has engaged in for any predecessor--R or D. I'll take my place behind the Constitution for which it stands----thank you Alex. I'll take "Patriotic beliefs" for a thousand....

Answer 6

No i don't think so. It even says so in the constitution. "WE THE PEOPLE", i don't see where that is being applied today.

Answer 7

actually the president dosnt have as much power as everyone thinks, hes got people to answer to also. but im up for the voltage thing to

Answer 8

not the current one - unless its about 1000 volts applied to his head

Answer 9

absolutely..."NO"