Abolish the presidency.

[suralos]

Why not?

[David]

Who would lead us? :help:

Ya we have Bush (:sick:) but sometimes we get presidents so good we deify them such as President Washington (:worship:).

[Trish]

Because we'd end up with the "too many cooks spoiling the soup" syndrome.

[AlanC]

Why not?

Or better yet, why? And what person or mechanism are you proposing to replace it? Or would you perfer to see thousands of beauraucrats just do whatever they see fit?

[Moorington]

More importantly, who are we to blame when we borrowed to heavily to buy a house we could never afford? The Federal Reserve? I don't think so.

[Scribbler1]

If we scrap the Presidency we must also scrap our entire form of government. The government is specifically designed to work with all three branches.
It's not the fault of our government that we have problems, it's the fault of the idiot sheep who put all the wrong people IN to run it.

[David]

If we scrap the Presidency we must also scrap our entire form of government. The government is specifically designed to work with all three branches.
It's not the fault of our government that we have problems, it's the fault of the idiot sheep who put all the wrong people IN to run it.

Indeed. I say everyone take a test, only the ones that show intelligence are eligible for government and they are selected at random by computer. Power corrupts, so you give it to the ones that don't want it.

[suralos]

The federal government can administer itself very well. Bureaucracies are tightly bound by rules, regulations and policies that have already been set, and they typically adhere closely to their guidelines. Interesting that major bureaucracy dysfunctions are largely the result of the president's manipulation of rules, regulations and policies. However, departments all have administrative heads and are all accountable to Congress, as far as Congress chooses to hold them accountable. Again, interesting that major Congressional dysfunctions are largely the result of the president's manipulation of rules, regulations and policies.

Abolishing the presidency would seem to solve those problems, and would also preclude designer wars and other administrative misadventures since only real imminent danger would bring Congress to declare war, which in turn would then properly allow DoD the necessary authority to conduct it.

The Secretary of State could be given the president's job as top figurehead and dignitary representative in foreign relations.

It might make the various departments more transparent as secretaries would be directly accountable without cover of the white house and it's advisers.

It would leave the task and power of veto to some other mechanism -- perhaps an elected party representative for only that purpose -- in other words, stripping the president of all power except veto.

As presidential candidates become less desirable (in my opinion), the cost of their "place in history" goes up, scandals and criminal conduct seem to become more common, and their "visions of leadership" generally just assure greater debt, as if that's even possible. I think it was President Reagan who said something like, things are as good right now as they are ever going to be. That was true of government during his administration and every one thereafter. So the question is what do you do about it.

I suppose Constitutionally abolishing or greatly restricting the presidency would be far more difficult than, say, trying to get Ron Paul elected, but just the fact that Paul has come as far as he has says something about the increasingly obvious dysfunction of the office.

[David]

The federal government can administer itself very well. Bureaucracies are tightly bound by rules, regulations and policies that have already been set, and they typically adhere closely to their guidelines. Interesting that major bureaucracy dysfunctions are largely the result of the president's manipulation of rules, regulations and policies. However, departments all have administrative heads and are all accountable to Congress, as far as Congress chooses to hold them accountable. Again, interesting that major Congressional dysfunctions are largely the result of the president's manipulation of rules, regulations and policies.

Abolishing the presidency would seem to solve those problems, and would also preclude designer wars and other administrative misadventures since only real imminent danger would bring Congress to declare war, which in turn would then properly allow DoD the necessary authority to conduct it.

The Secretary of State could be given the president's job as top figurehead and dignitary representative in foreign relations.

It might make the various departments more transparent as secretaries would be directly accountable without cover of the white house and it's advisers.

It would leave the task and power of veto to some other mechanism -- perhaps an elected party representative for only that purpose -- in other words, stripping the president of all power except veto.

As presidential candidates become less desirable (in my opinion), the cost of their "place in history" goes up, scandals and criminal conduct seem to become more common, and their "visions of leadership" generally just assure greater debt, as if that's even possible. I think it was President Reagan who said something like, things are as good right now as they are ever going to be. That was true of government during his administration and every one thereafter. So the question is what do you do about it.

I suppose Constitutionally abolishing or greatly restricting the presidency would be far more difficult than, say, trying to get Ron Paul elected, but just the fact that Paul has come as far as he has says something about the increasingly obvious dysfunction of the office.

I like my idea better. :thumbsup:

We need a NEW government, not 1 with an eliminated position.

[Scribbler1]

Indeed. I say everyone take a test, only the ones that show intelligence are eligible for government and they are selected at random by computer. Power corrupts, so you give it to the ones that don't want it.I've been saying that for a long time. Most people want to be president because they want to be president, and not as much to be a responsible president.
Which is why I don't trust ANYBODY running for the office, especially following George Bush.

[Scribbler1]

The federal government can administer itself very well. Bureaucracies are tightly bound by rules, regulations and policies that have already been set, and they typically adhere closely to their guidelines. Interesting that major bureaucracy dysfunctions are largely the result of the president's manipulation of rules, regulations and policies. However, departments all have administrative heads and are all accountable to Congress, as far as Congress chooses to hold them accountable. Again, interesting that major Congressional dysfunctions are largely the result of the president's manipulation of rules, regulations and policies.I think Congress has a lot to do with their own ineptitude. If you look closely, Congress actually has MORE power than any president, should they choose to exercise that power.
And, these days we especially need those checks and balances. Congress currently has earned an even LOWER favorable rating than Bush. Would you want to give THEM the president's powers too?

[David]

I think Congress has a lot to do with their own ineptitude. If you look closely, Congress actually has MORE power than any president, should they choose to exercise that power.
And, these days we especially need those checks and balances. Congress currently has earned an even LOWER favorable rating than Bush. Would you want to give THEM the president's powers too?

Indeed. The president wants a war? They ask Congress to declare war. Congress wants a war? They just declare it.

[Scribbler1]

Indeed. The president wants a war? They ask Congress to declare war. Congress wants a war? They just declare it.I don't think it works quite as easily as that. Only Congress can declare war, but the president, as CinC is the one who runs the military and generally is the one to ask Congress to declare war.
The POTUS can always initiate war, but after a short time he MUST ask for permission to keep it going.

[David]

I don't think it works quite as easily as that. Only Congress can declare war, but the president, as CinC is the one who runs the military and generally is the one to ask Congress to declare war.
The POTUS can always initiate war, but after a short time he MUST ask for permission to keep it going.

The president may be the general/admiral that commands the warriors, but since when do the generals/admirals on the field have a say what wars happen and what wars don't? They follow orders from above, nothing else. Same with the president, it's just Congress has never been so bold to act unilaterally.

[apdst]

Why not?

Because Congress would go completely unchecked, that's why not. As my dad would say, "too many chiefs and not enough indians".

Indeed. I say everyone take a test, only the ones that show intelligence are eligible for government and they are selected at random by computer.

We already have a small pool of people who, because of their financial situation, are the only ones whom can run for public office. I would be against doing anything else to make that pool any smaller.

Congress wants a war? They just declare it.

And the president vetoes their declaration. So, I guess Congress doesn't have more power than the president.

[David]

Because Congress would go completely unchecked, that's why not. As my dad would say, "too many chiefs and not enough indians".



We already have a small pool of people who, because of their financial situation, are the only ones whom can run for public office. I would be against doing anything else to make that pool any smaller.



And the president vetoes their declaration. So, I guess Congress doesn't have more power than the president.

1. Agreed.

2. Such people wouldn't be considered as only intelligent and then only those that didn't want it would be placed in government.

2. Congress wouldn't be passing a law, it'd be declaring war, something that is it's Constitutional right.

[Scribbler1]

The president may be the general/admiral that commands the warriors, but since when do the generals/admirals on the field have a say what wars happen and what wars don't? They follow orders from above, nothing else. Same with the president, it's just Congress has never been so bold to act unilaterally.When did I say anything about the generals? I think you misunderstood my post.

Congress DECLARES war, but the president usually STARTS them, and then has to ask Congress for permission to make it an "official" war. I can't recall a time when Congress declared war without a presidential request.

[apdst]

Congress wouldn't be passing a law, it'd be declaring war, something that is it's Constitutional right.

Everything the president does goes through Congress. Everything Congress does goes through the president. It's called checks and balances.

[Scribbler1]

Everything the president does goes through Congress. Everything Congress does goes through the president. It's called checks and balances.Three words. And it took me three posts to say the same thing. You think I talk too much?

[Pookie]

More importantly, who are we to blame when we borrowed to heavily to buy a house we could never afford? The Federal Reserve? I don't think so.

What does that have to do with abolishing the Presidency?
BACK ON TOPIC...............
So we abolish the Presidency. Then what? Really, what's better?
Or am I missing something here?
Purrs,
Pookie

[PatrickHenry]

My solutions are more achievable and more workable.

1. Federal recall elections

2. Permanent Federal Special Prosecutor of the Presidency.

[Scribbler1]

2. Permanent Federal Special Prosecutor of the Presidency.And one for Congress as well.

[AlanC]

My solutions are more achievable and more workable.

1. Federal recall elections

2. Permanent Federal Special Prosecutor of the Presidency.


And who is going to oversee the special prosecuters when they go off the reservation? Doesn't that transfer what you are afraid of, unchecked power, from an elected official to an appointed one?

[apdst]

Doesn't that transfer what you are afraid of, unchecked power, from an elected official to an appointed one?

An appointed official only has to keep his handlers happy and to hell with everyone else.

[PatrickHenry]

And who is going to oversee the special prosecuters when they go off the reservation? Doesn't that transfer what you are afraid of, unchecked power, from an elected official to an appointed one?

I admit that my proposal has some drawbacks.

What else would you suggest for a Presidency that has outgrown its uniform?

I am not just referring to the Bush Regime here.

This is a permanent problem with having our overlords in Washington.

Perhaps election of the PSPP??

And there's always the recall election...

You know, BushCo may be only a piker compared to what's coming... :scared:

[Scribbler1]

And who is going to oversee the special prosecuters when they go off the reservation? Doesn't that transfer what you are afraid of, unchecked power, from an elected official to an appointed one?That could easily be handled by a system of checks and...

Hang on. Don't we HAVE that already?

As I've been saying for decades, there is no problem with the government. None whatsoever. The entire problem lies with the idiot sheep who, when they bother to vote at all, vote in people for all the wrong reasons. Any time someone complains to me about the government, I just tell them to simply look out the window, and then to look in the mirror.

[Osborn F. Enready]

What was wrong with the system as the Constitution defined?

The only problem I can see is that people were gullible, and pressured enough by global circumstance to "accept the lie" of emergency powers, and the federal reserve, even though the federal reserve act and 16th amendment were passed in a less than honorable, questionably illegal, obviously dubious fashion.

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

You probably don't want to Abolish the Presidency as mush as you want
to limit the presidency to "GOOD, SMART, FAIR, HONEST, AND JUST" people.

We "As AMERICANS" should be FAR more critical of who we ALLOW to hold the Presidency!
We should have ABOLISHED THE REP&DEM parties decades ago ! They are what's
destroying America not the Presidency !

The REPS&DEMS are just like Gangrene if we don't cut off the finger we will loose the Arm!
If we don't cut off the Arm we will die !!!!!

I think we are pass cutting off the finger !!!!

It's your vote not the GOP's or DNC's
What's more important to you America or your Corrupt party !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[brien]

Yep Let's just throw the baby out with the bathwater. While we are at it, let's just scrap the entire Constitution.

Some folks place too much emphasis upon the Executive branch. For example, the Democrats were elected almost two years ago upon a platform of reform and change in Congress. So far for these two years, what have we got for reform and change. The same old pork barrell spending tied to meaningless legislation, and the same old politicians screwing the American taxpaying public. If the President were powerful in Domestic affairs, he would have run roughshod over this lazy ass Congress laden with Democrats who prefer to whine and moan rather than do and get done.

To blame the Executive office for the intrangience of Congress can be a trap that many are likely to fall into regarding matters of legislation. Congress can over ride a Bush veto, so I lay the blame of the lack of change these last two years at their doorstep. GWB is more responsible for the foreign policy of this nation, than he is for the domestic legislation which has affected the average US taxpaying citizen. One of the only major domestic policies to affect the average American and US taxpayer, besides the Patriot Act, to come out of the Bush Administration were the tax cuts. Even so, these were passed by Congress and only signed into law by the President.

So, other than in foreign policy, just how does the President affect the average American and the average taxpayer in the US.

I suppose the US could consider a Parliamentary style government as well...

[David]

-----

[Go Fish]

The federal government can administer itself very well. Bureaucracies are tightly bound by rules, regulations and policies that have already been set, and they typically adhere closely to their guidelines. Interesting that major bureaucracy dysfunctions are largely the result of the president's manipulation of rules, regulations and policies. However, departments all have administrative heads and are all accountable to Congress, as far as Congress chooses to hold them accountable. Again, interesting that major Congressional dysfunctions are largely the result of the president's manipulation of rules, regulations and policies.

Abolishing the presidency would seem to solve those problems, and would also preclude designer wars and other administrative misadventures since only real imminent danger would bring Congress to declare war, which in turn would then properly allow DoD the necessary authority to conduct it.

The Secretary of State could be given the president's job as top figurehead and dignitary representative in foreign relations.

It might make the various departments more transparent as secretaries would be directly accountable without cover of the white house and it's advisers.

It would leave the task and power of veto to some other mechanism -- perhaps an elected party representative for only that purpose -- in other words, stripping the president of all power except veto.

As presidential candidates become less desirable (in my opinion), the cost of their "place in history" goes up, scandals and criminal conduct seem to become more common, and their "visions of leadership" generally just assure greater debt, as if that's even possible. I think it was President Reagan who said something like, things are as good right now as they are ever going to be. That was true of government during his administration and every one thereafter. So the question is what do you do about it.

I suppose Constitutionally abolishing or greatly restricting the presidency would be far more difficult than, say, trying to get Ron Paul elected, but just the fact that Paul has come as far as he has says something about the increasingly obvious dysfunction of the office.

Your repeated use of the word "manipulation" indicates that it's important to your post, yet you failed to give one example. The democrats just changed the rules to fuck over the President's Columbia Free Trade program, just like they "manipulated" the scheduling of primary elections, in the proud tradition of the "Supermajority".
Y'all leftists are the ones who keep moving the goal posts. Oddly enough, as with Bill Clinton's impeachment, you're the ones who can't survive by the rules.

[suralos]

Your repeated use of the word "manipulation" indicates that it's important to your post, yet you failed to give one example. The democrats just changed the rules to fuck over the President's Columbia Free Trade program, just like they "manipulated" the scheduling of primary elections, in the proud tradition of the "Supermajority".
Y'all leftists are the ones who keep moving the goal posts. Oddly enough, as with Bill Clinton's impeachment, you're the ones who can't survive by the rules.


Bush has circumvented international rules of war, and domestically, usurped Constitutional rights, for example. In case you haven't noticed, a good case has been built for impeaching him.

I used the word "manipulated" twice -- grammatically redundant and boring. I hate when I do that. It's like stuttering, but I have to leave it to you to judge whether I'm proposing a real solution to presidential abuse of power, if that's possible.

I'm not sure where you get fogged up about that core point, but yeah, abuse of power is the central notion for this proposal to strip the president of all power but veto -- not to rub your nose in it. I did it again -- used "abuse" twice. Man, I hate when that happens. I did it again.

I agree, Democrats are just the flip side of the record. The choice is increasingly: which pile of crap do you want to stand in, and both parties are getting deeper in it with each passing election cycle. Again, the reason for the post.

Hardly worth reply, but respectfully, there you are. You'll have to point out where and what in my post convinces you I'm a liberal because it strikes me as a lame attempt to manipulate the post -- sort of like some kind of swift boat hack. Damn, did it again.

FYI, how Democrats schedule primaries is not a matter of government.

As for the Columbia trade agreement, I haven't read anything about unethical or illegal Congressional subterfuge or conspiracy against the president. You're ranting. You need help. I could help you, but you can't afford it, which is why you need help, which is why you need to vote for a Democrat in spite of your self. I probably won't, but I'm just trying to help. LOL.

If you want to live under a dictator or king, there are countries that have them.