• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the Office of President have too much power?

Does the Office of President have too much power?

  • Total voters
    29
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Does the Office of President have too much power?

Note the question says the Office of President. Not any particular individual.
 
radcen said:
Does the Office of President have too much power?

Note the question says the Office of President. Not any particular individual.
Click to expand...

I would say that yes, the office of president has too much power. But then, the devil's in the details. Today's world is moving so fast that it is often very much in America's best interest if the president has the power to get things done not just overnight, but sometimes within hours or less...and in such situations it is flatly impossible to expect Congress to act quickly enough for the nation's best interests.

In other words, what must happen is that the right one for the job must be chosen. For good or for ill, thanks to how fast the world moves today, that's what must be done.
 
Yes the president has too much power, in regards to because of how fast the world works is a load of garbage. If we have a direct attack the president is allowed to take military action without congress, however this is already in our constitution. The president does not have authority to say "because congress didn't pass my bill on illegal immigration I'm going to take executive authority and over ride congress".
 
No. The legislative branch has proven to us that it has the power to impede or delay a majority of the initiatives set forth by the president.
 
Not as long as someone keeps the POTUS in check somehow. And for me it doesn't depend on what party holds the office. The POTUS is not a dictator and he/she should always have to get at least 1 of the 2 houses of Congress to approve of and fund whatever he/she wants to do.
 
Yes and it is partly Congress' fault for giving power to the President.
 
Not at the moment, but the reintroduction of the line-item veto or fast track negotiating authority would be an overreach of power on the executive branch's part.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
Not at the moment, but the reintroduction of the line-item veto or fast track negotiating authority would be an overreach of power on the executive branch's part.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I think they do have too much power, but the line item veto is one power that I would like them to have.
 
Does the Office of President have too much power?
Click to expand...

a handy toolkit for determining the answer to this question :

if you're a Republican and a Democrat is president, yes.

if you're a Republican and a Republican is president, no.

if you're a Democrat and a Republican is president, yes.

if you're a Democrat and a Democrat is president, no.

this toolkit can also be used in the monthly jobs report threads.
 
Helix said:
a handy toolkit for determining the answer to this question :

if you're a Republican and a Democrat is president, yes.

if you're a Republican and a Republican is president, no.

if you're a Democrat and a Republican is president, yes.

if you're a Democrat and a Democrat is president, no.

this toolkit can also be used in the monthly jobs report threads.
Click to expand...

Works almost as good as the "SHAMWOW!" towel!
 
If the government was working as intended, no. However, the government doesn't work as intended today, Congress and the Supreme Court were supposed to balance out the power of the Presidency and they simply don't do that anymore.

As intended, no. As currently done, possibly.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Works almost as good as the "SHAMWOW!" towel!
Click to expand...

but wait, there's more. if you call in the next 20 minutes, we'll include bread gloves.

Bread-Gloves.jpg
 
Good on President Theodore Roosevelt pushing through the 17th amendment.
Getting rid of the appointment of US Senators by Gerry-Mandered State Legislatures .
 
Last edited:
As soon as the Congress starts to do its job, there may be something to balance.
Until then, the USSC and the President will do their jobs for them .
 
NIMBY said:
Good on President Theodore Roosevelt pushing through the 17th amendment.
Getting rid of the appointment of US Senators being by Gerry-Mandered State Legislatures .
Click to expand...

no bad..

states violated constitutional law, by electing senators directly, before the 17th was ever created.

state legislature elected senators was a check on federal government power, and with the 17th the government expanded and seized state powers for its own, violating the constitution.
 
The office of the president has too much power only when it does something I disapprove of. Other than that, it's cool.
 
radcen said:
Interesting. I think they do have too much power, but the line item veto is one power that I would like them to have.
Click to expand...

What powers do you believe the executive branch shouldn't have?

IMO, the line item veto severely weakens the legislative branch, which (ideally) is more representative of the population than the executive branch.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
What powers do you believe the executive branch shouldn't have?

IMO, the line item veto severely weakens the legislative branch, which (ideally) is more representative of the population than the executive branch.
Click to expand...
I'm short on time so I'll address the second one now and try to get back to the other one later.

I don't disagree that the the legislative branch is (supposed to be) more representative, but reality is that their actions often get lost in the hubbub. Most people don't know what individual bills their own Representative or Senator vote for or against. A President, on the other hand, is a single person and much more high profile, and thus more prone to be mindful of what they do.

A President having line-item veto power would be really helpful with large bills and emergency relief bills where a lot of pork is hidden. For example, it's fine if Florida needs hurricane relief, but I don't want to see a fire station for Montana in a hurricane relief bill for Florida. They are not related. The fire station should stand on it's own. As it is now, that cannot be struck out without vetoing the entire relief bill, which would never be done due the the inevitable hue and cry that would result.
 
NIMBY said:
Good on President Theodore Roosevelt pushing through the 17th amendment.
Getting rid of the appointment of US Senators by Gerry-Mandered State Legislatures .
Click to expand...

Moreover, prior to the 17th Amendment, state legislator elections were just proxies for national senatorial elections. State issues were often completely ignored in state elections when there was a contentious national issue.

I think we would be better off just implementing a completely nonpartisan independent system for redistricting house districts, and do away with the Senate entirely. The Senate was designed for a much smaller country than what we have today. Its absurd that a state like Wyoming should have the same power in the Senate that a state like Texas or New York has. The senate is exactly why a wealthy state with a high population like New Jersey never gets back anything close in federal spending compared to what it pays in federal taxes, while a state like Mississippi gets back 2 dollars or more for every dollar its citizens pay in taxes.
 
radcen said:
I'm short on time so I'll address the second one now and try to get back to the other one later.

I don't disagree that the the legislative branch is (supposed to be) more representative, but reality is that their actions often get lost in the hubbub. Most people don't know what individual bills their own Representative or Senator vote for or against. A President, on the other hand, is a single person and much more high profile, and thus more prone to be mindful of what they do.

A President having line-item veto power would be really helpful with large bills and emergency relief bills where a lot of pork is hidden. For example, it's fine if Florida needs hurricane relief, but I don't want to see a fire station for Montana in a hurricane relief bill for Florida. They are not related. The fire station should stand on it's own. As it is now, that cannot be struck out without vetoing the entire relief bill, which would never be done due the the inevitable hue and cry that would result.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be more efficient to outright ban pork?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom