Is the executive branch too powerful?

elprincipe

elprincipe

CAGiversary!
Feedback
60 (100%)
Ordering secret wiretaps in defiance of getting a court order, governing by executive order, ability to basically conduct a war without approval from Congress, recess appointments of people rejected by Congress...I'd say yes. And I don't mean the current president exclusively by all means; this has been going on for a while. Previous presidents have done the same. The executive branch has too much power now, and it's getting a little scary...
 
Then lets try to stop him. Vote against all republicans, to send a message. Write letters to congressmen, hell, run yourself.
 
I think the power mongering started sometime around the turn of the century. The 20th century, that is. Each president, save for a few (like Coolidge) seemed to what they could to get more and more power. Teddy Roosevelt was one of the original thinkers of the president being able to do whatever they wanted so long as it wasn't specifically forbidden in the constitution (as opposed to only being able to do what was explicitly said the prez could do in the constitution).

I'm not a fan of presidential powers (and I'm sure the framers wouldn't be either) as it places far too much power into one person's hands. We've essentially turned a position that was relatively on par with the legislature into a democratic king.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Ordering secret wiretaps in defiance of getting a court order, governing by executive order, ability to basically conduct a war without approval from Congress, recess appointments of people rejected by Congress...I'd say yes. And I don't mean the current president exclusively by all means; this has been going on for a while. Previous presidents have done the same. The executive branch has too much power now, and it's getting a little scary...[/QUOTE]

Wiretaps- Legal under numerous XO's from sitting Presidents for the past 25+ years.

Commander in Chief- Clearly enumerated Constitutional right.

Recess Appointments- Legal and enumerated right.

You want to talk about scary power that lies with the Supreme Court and the judiciary brach.

Unelected, unaccountable and in many cases precedent is upheld for decades on the basis of precedent alone.

You need look no further than the Kelo decision and McCain Feingold. They're both clear unequivocal examples of unconstitutional laws upheld by the USSC.

Congress also suffers from a lack of checks and balances. The XVIIth Ammendment gave people a double edged sword. Sure it's great, in theory, that people can elect a Senator by direct vote. Unfortunately Senators use their 1/100th power over the federal budget process to spend uncontrollably. Robert Byrd is a prime example of a Senator continually re-elected on the basis of the amount of money he brings back to West Virginia. There have been/are Republican Senators just as guilty of largesse on the budget but you'd be hard pressed to find any member of the Senate in any state in the past 50 years that have their names on more projects, buildings, roads, bridges etc than the King of Pork.

The original intent of the founders was the Senate would act as a check and balance against an out of control House. The House may propose any amount of obscene spending or laws but the Senate would keep them in check. It was up to "serious" politicians like state legislatures or governors to select or elect a Senator. Not the rable rousing population eager to elect the person most likely to CHA CHING things to them on a regular basis.

Every branch has its potential abuses. Historically all three branches have had gross imbalances with the other. FDR's Presidency was probably the strongest in history in regards to the power of the Executive. The Congress of Johnson and Rayburn was a juggernaut of unchecked power. Some would argue the Warren court was the strongest USSC of the 20th Century.

These things ebb and flow with the course of history and the power is cyclical. You will see incredibly weak and ineffective Presidents again just as you will see weak Congresses and Supreme Courts.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

You want to talk about scary power that lies with the Supreme Court and the judiciary brach.

Unelected, unaccountable and in many cases precedent is upheld for decades on the basis of precedent alone.
[/QUOTE]

If you are going to argue their power then wouldn't the Executive still be seen as more powerful because they appoint the Judiciary.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Wiretaps- Legal under numerous XO's from sitting Presidents for the past 25+ years.[/quote]
Legal under certain circumstances - circumstances that its becoming clear do not apply to what Bush was and is doing. Not as important as...

Commander in Chief- Clearly enumerated Constitutional right.
Click to expand...
The problem is how blatently this is being misunderstood (and quite deliberately too, I suspect.) The Constitution is really quite clear - Congress has the power to declare war, and make the rules regarding how war is waged. The president is the commander-in-chief. Anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can figure out exactly what the founding fathers meant here - the president doesn't get to do whatever he wants. The president, at most, gets to decide strategy, manage the troops, etc. He doesn't get to declare war on the drop of the hat - that's congress's job. He manages the details of a war, while Congress makes the big decisions such as whether a war should be fought or not.

You want to talk about scary power that lies with the Supreme Court and the judiciary brach.
Click to expand...
Until the Republicans control it, of course. Then everything will be hunky-dory. Remember, its only judicial activism when it benefits a liberal, and please ignore the fact that probably the most unconstitutional thing the Supreme Court has ever done was that little backflip of logic in 2000 that made Bush president.
 
And before you even say it:

Yes, I know previous presidents have waged war without Congresses approval. I believe they were wrong, and were very badly stretching the boundries of what they are permitted to do as president. What Bush is doing, however, is worse: he has rejected outright that Congress has the power to make the rules of war, a power which is EXPLICITLY granted to Congress in the Constitution. There's a difference between trying to stretch the boundry of the laws, and simply breaking them outright. Many presidents have done the former. Bush stands alone in the latter. He's usurped power granted to Congress - I would without hesitation label him a traitor to our country.
 
E-Z-B I hate to burst your bubble but Russ Feingold was not the originator of that quote. It was Patrick Henry March 23, 1775 which he stated, obviously, 16 months before the Declaration of Independence.

Like other famous plagairists in the Democratic party, COUGH JOE BIDEN COUGH, that quote is not his. The fact that you wish to attribute it to him?

Well, just speaks to your lack of knowledge of American history.
 
The President's powers, as define in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']E-Z-B I hate to burst your bubble but Russ Feingold was not the originator of that quote. It was Patrick Henry March 23, 1775 which he stated, obviously, 16 months before the Declaration of Independence.[/QUOTE]

:dunce:

Yeah, I know, that's why it's in my signature.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']E-Z-B I hate to burst your bubble but Russ Feingold was not the originator of that quote. It was Patrick Henry March 23, 1775 which he stated, obviously, 16 months before the Declaration of Independence.

Like other famous plagairists in the Democratic party, COUGH JOE BIDEN COUGH, that quote is not his. The fact that you wish to attribute it to him?

Well, just speaks to your lack of knowledge of American history.[/QUOTE]
Do you really believe any of what you've just typed, or are you coherent enought to grasp the fact that Feingold used a well-known and oft-cited quote that symbolizes the American ideology to point out that Cornyn's statement was flagrantly contradictory to that very notion of American freedom?

You're almost not worth dealing with anymore, between this tripe and the inability, much like our leader, to articulate what "victory in Iraq" means.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Either PAD is just getting lazy, or it's impossible to defend Bush these days intelligently.[/QUOTE]


Or, y'know... both.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']No, the problem comes when congress becomes a house of presidential ass-kissers rather than an independent branch of government.[/QUOTE]
Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

If the Republican congress actually, you know, put the good of the country before blatant partisanship and conducted true oversight of the executive branch like they're supposed to, I doubt we'd be having this discussion.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Either PAD is just getting lazy, or it's impossible to defend Bush these days intelligently.[/QUOTE]

The second one. I don't think he's lazy at all.
 
[quote name='Quillion']The second one. I don't think he's lazy at all.[/QUOTE]

Why? What's he ever do beyond pop in to post the latest RNC talking points, then run away when they're proven to be BS? Copy-and-pasting from right-wing blogs really isn't the most strenuous activity ever.

Heck, just today YOU caught him posting a link to a story he claimed proved Bush didn't do anything wrong, when right on the very page he linked to was a clear description of exactly why it doesn't apply to Bush's situation. If he doesn't even bother to read what he's linking to, what explaination other than laziness would apply? (Ok, dementia I guess...)
 
[quote name='Drocket']If he doesn't even bother to read what he's linking to, what explaination other than laziness would apply? (Ok, dementia I guess...)[/QUOTE]
He probably expects no one else to read it either. I think his dedication to proving anyone that doesn't agree with him wrong, proving that liberals and democrats alike suck forces him to really go to extreme measures to find the evidence. I really can't say he's lazy.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Wiretaps- Legal under numerous XO's from sitting Presidents for the past 25+ years.[/QUOTE]

WITH a warrant...

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Commander in Chief- Clearly enumerated Constitutional right.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but what does this have to do with declaring war, a clearly enumerated and constitutional right of Congress, that the president has usurped by conducting wars without formally declaring them?

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Recess Appointments- Legal and enumerated right.[/QUOTE]

True, although I would argue it's been abused, severely abused, by Bush with Bolton as well as Clinton. I'm not sure of the history of this before Clinton, but I do remember Clinton recess appointing several people who were rejected by the Senate, just as Bush did Bolton to the UN.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You want to talk about scary power that lies with the Supreme Court and the judiciary brach.

Unelected, unaccountable and in many cases precedent is upheld for decades on the basis of precedent alone.

You need look no further than the Kelo decision and McCain Feingold. They're both clear unequivocal examples of unconstitutional laws upheld by the USSC.[/QUOTE]

I agree that the decisions in those cases were wrong, but judges, while they are certainly unelected, are not unaccountable. First of all, the president appoints them and the Senate confirms, so each of the other branches has had its say in who gets to be a judge in the first place. Secondly, judges can be impeached by Congress if necessary. The "scary power" you speak of is also clearly outlined in the Constitution, didn't you notice?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']WITH a warrant...[/QUOTE]

Actually there was another Republican president who didn't bother to get warrants for his wiretaps.

His name was Nixon...
 
[quote name='camoor']Actually there was another Republican president who didn't bother to get warrants for his wiretaps.

His name was Nixon...[/QUOTE]

I saw mike wallace give an interview a few days ago. He was asked about multiple presidents and they got to nixon. He was asked about the type of person he was in regards to watergate. Wallace said something to the effect:

"He was either dishonest or stupid.................. and he wasn't stupid"

I don't think we'll be able to make the distinction with the current president.

Another difference is Nixon was actually a good president (not that I liked him, just that he was very capable), not sure we'll be able to say that bout old chimpy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top