I am not talking about President Bush. Only the office and title. Do you believe that we are placing an unhealthy emphasis on the office of President? Do you believe that more power should be given to the House and Senate? Would the American people be better off?
2007-12-07 01:35:24 · 18 answers · asked by Indy Indy Indy!!!! 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Under the Constitution of the United States, no. Under the last three presidents, yes, as they have taken power unto themselves not authorized. But Congress, instead of standing up and putting them in their place, the willingly give up power that rightly belongs to them.
Congress has not lived up to the power given it by the Constitution, so potential dictators have filled the void. It will only get worse until they stop the President AND the Supreme Court. Congress also has the power to limit what cases the Supreme Court can rule on. They can take anything off the table that they want to, and the Supremes can do nothing. The power of the United States government lies in the Congress (the people), but we have given the lowest common denominator power in Washington (Kennedy, Barney Frank, Polusi, etc.), but they are only interested in increasing their perks and free bees.
2007-12-07 01:43:07 · answer #1 · answered by Warren W- a Mormon engineer 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
When the COnstitution was drawn up the US had tried to decentralize power as under the Articles of COnfederation. This was an attempt to take away power from the president. THey were a complete failure and told the nation that a strong leader was necessary. This proved that a powerful president was the only wauy the nation could survive. Also, the US government has a system of checks and balances which insures that no one branch can become too powerful. Thus, unlike a king or monarch the president has somewhat limited power ad therefore I do not think that too much power is invested in the presidency because it is necessary for the preservation of the nation.
2007-12-07 01:46:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think the office has the right amount of power and like others mentioned, our system of checks and balances works pretty well. I think it works best when at least one of the chambers is controlled by the opposite party but when both are or neither are, things get a little crazy- either a free for all or a stand still but that is the way it goes.
I think individual politicians should start representing the people not parties though because far too many of them rather lie (spin) to the people in order to advance the party agenda and maintain control than be truthful and let the chips fall where they may. Having run for office (won some/lost some) I believe in being honest win or lose but most politicians do NOT buy into that line of thinking but then again when the American people continue to buy into BS at every turn, where is the incentive for politicians to be honest
2007-12-07 01:45:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
The president is our elected chief and a servant of the human beings. some human beings use “chief” and “ruler” interchangeably. In a rustic like Cuba, the president is the ruler. the militia and police are under his administration, as are the human beings. in this us of a, the president is the commander in chief, however the he won't use the militia to habit kinfolk contributors police strikes. The national look after is under the path of the governors and it is the governors who turn on the look after for emergency circumstances like typhoon relief. Our police forces are under the path of Mayors. the militia is sworn to guard and shield the form. If any president ordered the militia to realize this against the voters of manhattan city, it wouldn’t do it. The look after wouldn’t the two, nor might the police rigidity. in the Tiananmen sq. riots of 1989, the chinese language government ordered its militia to sparkling the park of protesters, and, based upon whose numbers you suspect, from two hundred to 3,000 human beings have been killed. yet comments pronounced militia workers have been very reluctant to fireside on their very own human beings. If that grow to be the case in a communist us of a like China merely approximately twenty years in the past, it would actual be the case right here. a frontrunner who desperate to grow to be a ruler in this us of a might haven't any militia or police rigidity to enforce his decree and can probable finally end up in the Potomac River temporarily order. and that i recommend floating, no longer swimming. as properly, maximum of our troops are occupied in the Iraq and Afghanistan, and countless others are stationed worldwide extensive. They couldn’t get right here in time to save our new “ruler.”
2016-10-10 11:22:21 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps you can make specific suggestions as to how you would change the checks and balances between branches? And why exactly you think those would be better then the status quo?
If you feel strongly about it, then you will have the basis of a Constitutional Amendment that you can pursue.
2007-12-07 06:58:49 · answer #5 · answered by Barry C 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Due to the checks and balances applied to each office they have equal power.
The President can't do anything he wants. He needs approval from the House and Senate.
Obviously, the majority of the press points to the President to give the public the appearance that they have the majority of the power.
2007-12-07 01:41:03 · answer #6 · answered by BMOC 2 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Have you read the Constitution lately? Our forefathers put in checks and balance to guard against too much power in any of the branches of our federal government. Problem is there are some folks in Washington over the past say 1or 2 hundred years that think it wasn't applying to their office.
Stick to the Constitution, it actually is a brilliant document and when applied makes for a heck of a country.
2007-12-07 01:40:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 3⤋
In my feeling, the President has too much responsibility. I think it's unreasonable to ask one man to be responsible for foreign and domestic policy together. Only a genius could be an expert on enough things to handle it by himself. I think there should be two, or possibly three Presidents who share the load. In the time of the founding fathers, things were a lot less complicated than they are today.
2007-12-07 01:45:13 · answer #8 · answered by mommanuke 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
No, the balance of power is right. The problem lies in the partisan politics. Each side is so determined to make the other look bad, they forget the greater good!
2007-12-07 01:45:55 · answer #9 · answered by The Voice of Reason 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No. The powers of the President and the Congress are clearly spelled out. It has worked for over 225 years.
2007-12-07 01:39:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 4⤋