President Too Powerful?

[ClayBarham]

The Articles of Confederation was our first Federal Constitution. It proved too weak to carry on the work of a national government. Under the Articles, each year the Congress met, they would elect a new President, a creature of the legislature. It was the President’s job to carry out and administer the wishes of the Congress, to appoint cabinet officers as well as ambassadors. It was much the same as a corporate board of directors with a chairman or president at its head, doing the bidding of the board. America’s national government was too feeble, under this arrangement, to do the nation’s business. A new Constitution had to be created that would enable government to function, but not to rule.

In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, according to James Madison’s journals, the first work on shaping a new government did not start until the fifth day, and two days were spent defining the legislative branch, and two and a half days on the Executive. The initial proposals had the Executive selected by the Legislative Branch, as it was under the Articles. That soon passed with the idea that the Executive should not be a creature of that body, depriving the Executive branch of its autonomy and upsetting the balance of power. Yet, the sentiments were against a free and active ruler, so the Legislative Branch made the laws and the Executive was to carry them out. The Judiciary had the task of settling disputes rising out of the actions of both. Each branch checked the other.

The President could not declare war, under the new Constitution ratified in 1789. He could request Congress to declare war and, should they do that, the President assumed the role of Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. In the case of the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq by President Bush, wars that had to be agreed to by Congress, the President is being accused of operating on his own and outside the law. In reality, President Bush went to Congress for authorization, and, in a slight-of-hand way, Congress gave him permission. By slight-of-hand, they left themselves an out by being able to say, we only said he could look into it, or do it if we really said OK later on.

Congress, through its own cowardice, did not want to come out and tell the President to “go get ‘em.” They wanted political wiggle room in case it turned unpopular, as wars usually become. The Civil War, the First and Second World Wars, Korea and certainly Viet Nam had turned around in the people’s mind, and if these two turned in the same way, the opposition party could deny complicity in the whole affair, which they are doing now. It proves to citizens, that if we elect PC Cowards to Congress, this will always happen. Our nation becomes hostage to political power grabs of one side or the other, instead of uniting behind a decision made, right or wrong.

[Elrathin]

Just ask yourself this Clay, given the President's power now, would you want Hillary to have that same power?

Yes, the president at this time has too much power.

[ClayBarham]

I would have to translate for you....no, not too much power, just in the way he uses power granted him by law. It would be the same as saying a policeman is too powerful because he carries a gun, and he should be made equal to the bad guy who may not, or may, have a gun. Then, again, you may say the citizen is too powerful because he or she is allowed to own a gun, and what happens when some poor misguided, homeless burglar with a gun comes into their home and then gets shot, when all he may have wanted was a sandwich. No, the checks and balances are still there, but when many legislators start changing their minds, after re-deciding with all the people who were pissed at the terrorists, only to swing over when many lose their fear of the terrorists, whom they now find as good guys just trying to defend their religion. The problem is not Bush, but wishy-washy congressmen and women who change their mind to ride the new waves.

[Saigio]

So, Clay, let me try and get at this. What you are talking about here is Congress, not the power granted to the president?
So, maybe the title isn't exactly appropriate...

[ClayBarham]

Certainly! Congress has become corrupted because it is more important for each member to campaign for reelection the moment he or she gets there. Those earmarks are a great indicator, and the President signing spending bills with them attached puts him in the same pond. Now that he is vetoing them is better, but kind of late. The President has difficulty going beyond the powers granted to him, as someone will call him out on it, but Congress has been abusing its power for many years buying votes with our money in a mad scramble to get as much from the treasury as they can grab before it runs dry and they need a new tax to replenish it.

[PatrickHenry]

The Executive presently has all he needs to run the country's government without Congressional input. Reason: The Declared State of Emergency ongoing for six years.

Yes, that is too much power.

[ClayBarham]

And he should be limited in his powers. Congress makes the rules and laws, and the President is supposed to carry them out. America dispatched the king over 200 years ago and we had no intention of creating our own.....but, none have really exercised any authority not given him by Congress. Congress has created many agencies where non-elected bureaucrats make decision they only are supposed to make, so they gave up their authority and responsibility in order to focus always on reelection. You may be letting the war and Bush's trying to keep the terrorists at bay with his going too far, because you agree with Edwards that this is really a bumper sticker war, so you assume this means we have an imperial presidency.

[Lazarus]

And here I thought that this might be an interesting subject; that the Constitution- through commission or omission- had vested in the Executive too much authority.

Alas, ClayBarham cannot change his stripes.

[ClayBarham]

Alas, neither can the Constitution without amendment.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Yes, the executive seat is far too powerful thanks to creation of the Federal Reserve, The War and Emergency Powers Act, and the "Roosevelt-create a commitee for it" approach to governing.

I like this warning:
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
-James Madison, Federalist Papers #47

This tyranny was obvious when it came, but the people at the time had no stomach for the fight and division it would have caused. Now it has become our duty.

The method of control to deceive the public while it happened?
“The nation's immediate problem is that while the common man fights America's wars, the intellectual elite sets its agenda. Today, whether the West lives or dies is in the hands of its new power elite: those who set the terms of public debate, who manipulate the symbols, who decide whether nations or leaders will be depicted on 100 million television sets as 'good' or 'bad.' This power elite sets the limits of the possible for Presidents and Congress. It molds the impressions that move the nation, or that mire it.”
-Richard Nixon, 1980, in The Real War

The proof in the pudding?
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
-David Rockefeller, Bilderberg 1991 (Baden-Baden Germany)

Yes, fascist corporatism is taking hold, its time we face the music and deal with it.

[ClayBarham]

Right, the Constitution is no longer viewed as a limit on government, but I still contend the Congress is the prime offender and Bush is an offender to the extent he does not resist them, as per the signed in the recent budget full of pork. Also, since you mentioned TIME Magazine, they have selected Putin as their man of the year because he has brought stability to Russia.....as did Stalin, Hitler, etc. as if stability as tyranny is admirable.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I agree, the Congress IS to blame. What is worthy of notice is that the Congress has been to blame for a substantial number of laws that are Constitutional transgressions, and direct abridgement of rights.

They have been doing this mainly since 1933, but really, for the last 157 years.

[ClayBarham]

Look at many of those who have been elected to Congress, such as would open the treasury to their constituents with no shame and ignore the Constitution and the intent of our Republic. I wonder if some of them even bathe? They are a sorry bunch, and as such, I expected Bush to stand as a bulwark against their mischief instead of going along with it. He has done some great things, but he sure has let his constituents down.

[PatrickHenry]

...Bush...has done some great things...
Umm...What?

[Saigio]

...Bush...has done some great things...
Umm...What?


I guess Clay needs to adjust his medication...

[Osborn F. Enready]

I haven't seen a single good thing come from the madman in the whitehouse, other than PROVING BEYOND A DOUBT both parties need to be hung out to dry, as they are the same evil, working toward the same end....jackbooted tyranny.

When the boot of government is on your neck, crushing your windpipe, it really doesn't matter much if its the left boot or the right boot.

[ClayBarham]

Not even the tax cuts or any of the responses to the blowing up of the Twin Towers?

[Mark L Hamburger]

Not even the tax cuts or any of the responses to the blowing up of the Twin Towers?


Tax cuts without a reduction in spending mean nothing, and the proper response to 9/11 would have been to actually capture the person responsible, which hasn't happened. It seems to me like he just used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq and do some nation building, which was what he campaigned AGAINST in 2000.