NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, there are checks and balances, the judiciary interprets the foundation of the law, the legislative makes the laws and the Executive....... makes quick decisions as to war and such, or am I missing something? It seems the judiciary and the legislative check each other just fine, but have to strain with all their might to check the presidency. Why does an individual with (usually) no military intelligence training get to be commander in chief? Why does a person with no required training in any field get to appoint the most important government specialists? I recall that permanent presidency was offered to Washington (who refused) and that there were plans in the early days before the revolution to make the USA a monarchy, the position was offered to the King of Prussia and then withdrawn. I can't remember where I got those last two facts, but even if they are not true, is the executive branch just a living fossil from the days of our founders, who were not quite ready to give up the monarchy mind set? What is the executive branch for? And then if it does serve certain good purposes couldn't these be divied up and performed in a more practicle manner? Anyhow, please enlighten me, but to me it just seems that the executive branch is a ticking time bomb, counting down toward dictatorship.

Poll coming

Ok, there are checks and balances, the judiciary interprets the foundation of the law, the legislative makes the laws and the Executive....... makes quick decisions as to war and such, or am I missing something? It seems the judiciary and the legislative check each other just fine, but have to strain with all their might to check the presidency. Why does an individual with (usually) no military intelligence training get to be commander in chief? Why does a person with no required training in any field get to appoint the most important government specialists? I recall that permanent presidency was offered to Washington (who refused) and that there were plans in the early days before the revolution to make the USA a monarchy, the position was offered to the King of Prussia and then withdrawn. I can't remember where I got those last two facts, but even if they are not true, is the executive branch just a living fossil from the days of our founders, who were not quite ready to give up the monarchy mind set? What is the executive branch for? And then if it does serve certain good purposes couldn't these be divied up and performed in a more practicle manner? Anyhow, please enlighten me, but to me it just seems that the executive branch is a ticking time bomb, counting down toward distatorship.

Poll coming

The founding fathers gave just cause to all 3 branches of government to check each other. The president can nominate judges, which the Congress has to approve, the congress can put forth legislation, and the Judiciary can call it unconstitutional, and the congress can pass legislation, and then have it vetoed by the executive (president). I am sure many will give a better in-depth explanation as to their purposes, but the President and the Executive Branch are definitely an important and necessary part of our government framework, by no means a "living fossil".

Considering that before our latter Constitution was ratified, we had the Articles of Confederation, which just gave a hell lot of power to states, which proved quite problematic for the nation, I don't think that the mindset arguement is exactly much of a factor.

I believe it was because of Washington's military leadership that the President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. I really need to take that damned AP US History class...But noooo...World History Honors and THEN AP US...*rambles*

Besides, 200 years with the same basic rules of government. I think the "timebomb" is a dud.

The executive branch is actually charged to enforce laws. Anyone working in the government who does so (FBI, CIA) fall under that branch of government, as does the military.

Does the Prez actually belong to the Executive? I thought that was generally police and the like - those executing the things decided by Legislative and Judicative.

Does the Prez actually belong to the Executive? I thought that was generally police and the like - those executing the things decided by Legislative and Judicative.
Executive - President, VP, Cabinet
Legislative - Senate, HoR
Judicial - Supreme Court of the U.S.

Executives are currently too powerful. I see three decent ways of curtailing this:

1. Enabling voter recall, as in Venezuela.
2. Allowing the veto to be overturned by smaller majorities - say, three-fifths instead of two-thirds.
3. Raising the threshold required for Senatorial approval of presidential appointees to two-thirds instead of a mere majority. If the Senate - especially the president's party - decided to be less subservient, the current system would work, but that seems unlikely.

Does the Prez actually belong to the Executive? I thought that was generally police and the like - those executing the things decided by Legislative and Judicative.

Actually, the police fall under the executive branches of the individual states. There is no real federal police force. The US govt generally relies on the states to enforce its will.

Anyway, the President is the head of the executive branch.

This Wikipedia article should help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

Considering that before our latter Constitution was ratified, we had the Articles of Confederation, which just gave a hell lot of power to states, which proved quite problematic for the nation, I don't think that the mindset arguement is exactly much of a factor.

I believe it was because of Washington's military leadership that the President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. I really need to take that damned AP US History class...But noooo...World History Honors and THEN AP US...*rambles*

Besides, 200 years with the same basic rules of government. I think the "timebomb" is a dud.
Most likely, as Washington was pretty much delegated the government by the C.C. during the war of independence. The president's role as commander in chief is ceremonial at any rate, in this day and age anyway, and even in Washington's time. He rode out against the farmers in Shays' Rebellion, but that drew him and Alexander tons of flak.

I don' t mind the presidency in gemeral. The thing I don't like is the executive order junk...that is unconstitional. The thing that gets me about that is that the orders are never repealled, so someone could actually be arrested on an executive order passed by Abraham Lincoln during the civil war (US)!!!

Most likely, as Washington was pretty much delegated the government by the C.C. during the war of independence. The president's role as commander in chief is ceremonial at any rate, in this day and age anyway, and even in Washington's time. He rode out against the farmers in Shays' Rebellion, but that drew him and Alexander tons of flak.
I think you make a valid point... The President is ultimately the commander in chief because SOMEONE needs to be the end all, man/woman in charge.... period.

Besides, 200 years with the same basic rules of government. I think the "timebomb" is a dud.

Hmm, 200 years is not very long in nation life span. I'm noting that America is a difficult target to reach, and attack. It will be very hard for any outsider to end the USA. However, every time the USA is attacked, say pearl harbor or 9-11, we slip toward the right and begin short changing liberty. I guess what I'm saying is: imagine is wasn't three buildings that fell on 9-11, but something even bigger, say a biological attack or even a nuke. I don't think (real) democracy could survive the consequences of the aftermath. That is the presidency would be granted carte blanche, it's just a matter of time before a terrible event make the US people knee jerk and invest the presidency with too much power.

Anyhow, please enlighten me, but to me it just seems that the executive branch is a ticking time bomb, counting down toward distatorship.
Well, since I don't neccessarily mind rule by "dis tator" (so long as we successfully keep 'dat tator out of the matter, it has far too many eyes for my tastes), I'm not to worried about this timebomb.
Now, the timebomb that is under my chair, and has been set to go off in 20 minutes is another matter. Fortunately, every pun I make gives me another 50 seconds, so I just might make it.

I think the executive powers should be more closely watched. Not really taken away, as he needs them as the world gets faster and more complex, but I believe the Imperial Presidency is going too far. The executive branch is usurping powers of the other two, which is allowed under certain circumstances by the constitution.

By waging this war on terror, Bush can say he needs these powers to faithfully execute the laws, which he swore an oath to. The loophole is this: this global war on terror has no clear end in sight, so this Administration is trying to make this temporary usurption of powers, like watered down emergency powers, the norm. A perfect example is the wiretapping program. Something I believe is necessary, but if unchecked, the presidency can usurp too much power.

The idea behind having just one man as the exec is that it allows the country to have a focal point. It also allows for, in an emergency situation, the nation to react swiftly. The framers made a system that is very slow on purpose. This (hopefully) prevents the passage of bad laws and the stripping of rights and liberty because of all the hurdles that it takes to get something done.

However, should the nation be at war, the idea was to have a branch that could react quicker than Congress can (Washington having first had experiance with how slow Congress could move, even in the middle of a war).

The C-in-C position was more due to the strange combination of exec and head of state that the US system has. Most other states invest in an exec as a Prime Minister with the Head of State handling all other ceramonial and nominal duties (or having some real power). A good example would be Prime Minister Tony Blair as the exec of England and HM Queen Elizabeth II as head of state. She gets to serve as C-in-C of the UK forces and hold all the parties, he gets to run the goverment. The US system combines both positions into one personage. Meaning while President Bush has to run the goverment and the war on whatever-it-is-now, he also has to pass out sandwiches at the White House and do the other cerimonial tasks that Heads of State do.

It also allows for, in an emergency situation, the nation to react swiftly.

Lol

Lol
Well... quicker than if it had to be debated, and passed, in both houses of Congress with all riders, pork, and press confrences that are the norm for any other piece of legislation. ;)

empower it exactly to it's constitutional guidelines.

empower it exactly to it's constitutional guidelines.
there in lies the problem--Because the founding fathers didn't know what they were creating with the presidency. That is why there are only an ambiguous three paragraphs in the constitution outlining its powers.

The executive branch needs to be destroyed, violently if neccesary.

The executive branch needs to be destroyed, violently if neccesary.

Um, your going to get me in trouble with Homeland security aren't you?

My biggest problem is the president's ability to declare/wage war without immediate consent from congress. Lately we've been seing a rash of hastey ill faught wars when looking back we're all saying "Yikes, didn't really think that one through."

Not to mention the hypocrisy that is the presidential election. Dumbasses vote for a president based on his domestic policy but in reality the president can't do a damned thing outside of influence and the veto. A president should primarily be elected based on their foreign policy where all their strength is at.

As for the buracracy(I hate spelling this word), I say leave it be.

Does the Prez actually belong to the Executive? I thought that was generally police and the like - those executing the things decided by Legislative and Judicative.
Yes. The President is to enforce the law.
I often wonder if the US would be better without such a strong Federal system.
Actually, the police fall under the executive branches of the individual states. There is no real federal police force.
You're forgetting the FBI.
Someone's gotta deal with things once criminals go over state lines.

The US executive (esp. MR. Shrubbery) is way out of control :rolleyes:
At least Mr. Shrubbery should get his ass kicked.

You're forgetting the FBI.
Someone's gotta deal with things once criminals go over state lines.

Yeah, but the FBI rarely does anything without acting in conjunction with state authorities.

Yeah, but the FBI rarely does anything without acting in conjunction with state authorities.
Well ... yeah ... they aren't the über-police ... more like law enforcement foremen ... or something ....

Yeah, but the FBI rarely does anything without acting in conjunction with state authorities.
You're also forgetting the US Marshalls.

Without getting too into it, the truest problem with the US executive branch is that the legislative branch has not done enough to act as its "check." If Congress were not so worried about getting re-elected, they might actually get upset when one the executive branch seemed to be overstepping its authorization. The Constitution is not so vague or naive as some would believe. The founding fathers didn't necessarily anticipate we would be where we are now, but they knew things would evolve. The Constitution very effectively grants a Congressional check on the President, but it is only worth anything if it is exercised. Otherwise, the President takes free reign.

You're also forgetting the US Marshalls.

They're still not a real national police force. Their jurisdiction is rather limited.

The Marshals Service is responsible for providing protection for the federal judiciary, transporting federal prisoners, protecting endangered federal witnesses and managing assets seized from criminal enterprises. The men and women of the Marshals Service are responsible for 55.2 percent of arrests of federal fugitives. In 2003, U.S. marshals captured over 34,000 federal fugitives and assisted in the capture of over 27,000 state or local fugitives.

Anyway, the point of me harping on about police is that when I lived in Europe several of my friends thought that the FBI was a national police force, on par with the French Police Nationale or the Gendarmarie. The US has no analogous force. The various state police forces are much closer to such organizations than the FBI.

Actually, the FBI doesn't even have police powers. They can't arrest anyone, which is why they always have local cops with them to make the actual arrest.

However, Marshalls and Treasury Officers (including Customs Officers and BATF and DEA Agents) do have police powers.

70% so far in favour of either curtailing or abolishing the executive.

I didn't vote. :D

Get rid of all three branches.

I'm an anarchist. (It's actually much more complicated than that)

I didn't vote. :D

Lol, how many countries did you vote with :P