The Presidency is too powerful

[RoBo1988]

A Democrat I can agree with. Congress does not do their job, so presidents issue EO's, which are struck down when the next POTUS comes into office.

The Presidency Has Become Too Powerful

It’s long past time for Congress to reassert itself.

open.substack.com

 

[d taylor]

-
​

The original governmental idea, organized for the ruling of the county back in 1700's to 1800's.
Is not designed for a country that has grown to the size (population wise) that America is now.

A country this size and its government that has grown to the size it is. To keep up with the growth of the country's population's growth, can not help but go corrupt.

Just like trying to teach a class of 10 students they can be controlled. But grow the class to 30, 40, 50 students and problems will surface and the class will become a chaotic disaster.

 

[RoBo1988]

Keeping the Balance: What a President Can Do and Cannot Do | Harry S. Truman

A PRESIDENT CAN . . .

www.trumanlibrary.gov

 

[RoBo1988]

-
​

The original governmental idea, organized for the ruling of the county back in 1700's to 1800's.
Is not designed for a country that has grown to the size (population wise) that America is now.

A country this size and its government that has grown to the size it is. To keep up with the growth of the country's population's growth, can not help but go corrupt.

Just like trying to teach a class of 10 students they can be controlled. But grow the class to 30, 40, 50 students and problems will surface and the class will become a chaotic disaster.

That's why much of what the federal government does should be returned to the states. Every state has their own department of education, transportation, bureau of investigation, etc.

Much of it is deliberate; to take power from the states and create a central government.

 

[JSRG]

I think the single best step to curb presidential power would be to abolish the veto power.

The veto effectively makes the President the most powerful person in the legislative branch (despite not even being in the legislative branch) and also makes it virtually impossible for congress to take back any power it has ceded to the President. Congress passes a law saying the President can do something? Well, good luck taking it back! If Congress tries to do that, the President just vetoes it. And you can't get the required supermajority of houses to override it because you'd need both parties to get on board to hit the required 2/3, and why would the party of the current President want to curb their own President's power?

Abolishing the veto would allow congress to claw back its power and help government work better by removing gridlock.

This article (by someone else) puts forward what seems to me to be a pretty strong argument for doing it, making the points I noted above:

Geld the Veto

Some Constitutional Amendments #1

decivitate.substack.com

Technically, their suggestion is not to remove the veto entirely, but simply require a simple majority to override it, turning the veto into more of a note of caution from the President than the power it has not. In either case (a total removal of a dramatic weakening) it gets rid of the President's extreme power over the legislature.

Of course, passing an amendment is excruciatingly difficult which means this would probably not happen, but as this shift wouldn't inherently benefit either party over the other (I suppose it would weaken the party of whoever is currently the President, but you could just have the Amendment only take effect at the start of the next presidential term), I could possibly see it happening.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I think the single best step to curb presidential power would be to abolish the veto power.

The veto effectively makes the President the most powerful person in the legislative branch (despite not even being in the legislative branch) and also makes it virtually impossible for congress to take back any power it has ceded to the President. Congress passes a law saying the President can do something? Well, good luck taking it back! If Congress tries to do that, the President just vetoes it. And you can't get the required supermajority of houses to override it because you'd need both parties to get on board to hit the required 2/3, and why would the party of the current President want to curb their own President's power?

Abolishing the veto would allow congress to claw back its power and help government work better by removing gridlock.

This article (by someone else) puts forward what seems to me to be a pretty strong argument for doing it, making the points I noted above:

Geld the Veto

Some Constitutional Amendments #1

decivitate.substack.com

Technically, their suggestion is not to remove the veto entirely, but simply require a simple majority to override it, turning the veto into more of a note of caution from the President than the power it has not. In either case (a total removal of a dramatic weakening) it gets rid of the President's extreme power over the legislature.

Of course, passing an amendment is excruciatingly difficult which means this would probably not happen, but as this shift wouldn't inherently benefit either party over the other (I suppose it would weaken the party of whoever is currently the President, but you could just have the Amendment only take effect at the start of the next presidential term), I could possibly see it happening.

If you require only a simple majority, then any president with an opposing congress will be, essentially, a lame duck. You'd do better to eliminate the filibuster.

 

[JSRG]

If you require only a simple majority, then any president with an opposing congress will be, essentially, a lame duck.

In what way? The fact the President no longer gets to dictate legislation and the process of creating legislation is again done by the legislative branch? The veto power gives the President more power over legislation than the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader combined have. The most powerful person in the legislative branch isn't even actually in the legislative branch. That's the problem, and that's what getting rid of the veto solves.

And the veto further makes Congress unable to remove any power of the President they granted, which is why the President just gets more powerful over time as more and more things are ceded by Congress, which has no practical way to get them back. Want to solve the problem of the President being way, way too powerful and force them back into their proper constitutional role? Get rid of the veto.

Presidents had power even before using (or more practically, threatening) the veto became commonplace. They don't become "lame ducks" for reverting to the power they're actually supposed to have.

You'd do better to eliminate the filibuster.

Eliminating the filibuster does not the slightest thing to curb the powers of the president. If anything it makes them more powerful.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

-
​

The original governmental idea, organized for the ruling of the county back in 1700's to 1800's.
Is not designed for a country that has grown to the size (population wise) that America is now.

A country this size and its government that has grown to the size it is. To keep up with the growth of the country's population's growth, can not help but go corrupt.

Just like trying to teach a class of 10 students they can be controlled. But grow the class to 30, 40, 50 students and problems will surface and the class will become a chaotic disaster.

Sure, that could happen but you don't burn the school down to "fix" it.

 

[d taylor]

That's why much of what the federal government does should be returned to the states. Every state has their own department of education, transportation, bureau of investigation, etc.

Much of it is deliberate; to take power from the states and create a central government.

-
​

Yes i do agree.
The underhandedness now in politics with this large Federal government is just a beast. That has grown too big. especially when it just prints money and hands it out like candy. With also the push over the last years for a global economy even more complicates these problems of corruption.

 

[d taylor]

Sure, that could happen but you don't burn the school down to "fix" it.

-
​

No but it will probably burn it's own self down eventually. This just can not go on as it is going, some type of collapse will eventually be the result.

Kind of like the person who smokes their whole life seemingly doing fine and then one day has a problem and goes to the doctor. Finds out they have lung cancer and is dead in a month or so. their body ate up with cancer.
That just happened to a person in the town i live in, who owned a music store and is now gone at age 75.