Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

After this election and some deep study of the Constitution, I became interested and educated more so in how our country is supposed to be run.  (Something our schools failed at doing.)  In watching the Presidential Address last night. I could only think... who made him "King"?  Why is the President deciding policy?  Why is he telling Congress what laws to pass?  Why is it up to him to decide the course of our country?  Why is it up to him to decide what tax cuts or raises we are to have?  This is all mandated the responsibility of Congress.  The Executive branch is there to be a check to the laws being created by Congress.  They appoint positions in the Judicial branch as a check to their power and his main objective is to be a sort of representative of the US for foreign affairs and foreign policy.  Domestic affairs are to be handled by Congress.

Argue if you will that Congress passed the bailout that failed last time, but I'd argue that it was Bush that pushed that failed legislation last time abusing some imaginary "solo" power of the President to decide what we should be doing.

Why does all this feel so wrong?  Why does the President have such power?

[Aqizzar]

Because in the 1800's somebody figured out that since the President has to go around campaigning across the country, he winds up becoming a repository of people's expectations for the coming years.  This isn't strictly true, but it makes a good angle to go around saying you'll argue for the people's behalf.

Basically, the President, as a singular, national figure always has everyone's attention.  He can make pronouncements and challenges, to which individual people then respond to their own representatives who actually craft legislation.  The infamous Bully Pulpit - if enough people support what you have to say, the people who actually make laws find it in their interest to listen to you too, or disagree with you at their peril.  Representatives are always thinking about the next election, and saying that you "helped" or "blocked" a President's ideas (based on how your district thinks of him) is the defacto method of campaigning.  Essentially, he's a rubric, from which everyone has to take their queues.

Plus, the veto power means that every Congressional action has to either meet the President's approval, or be so popular among a mixed house that it can override anyway.  The veto doesn't see a lot of use, because Congressmen don't go through the rigmarole of testing it.  Instead, they go talk the President to negotiate what he'll sign off on, then make a bill that fits that.

Look, I get that you're reserved about Obama or whatever, but he didn't give the office the unofficial power it has.  Vast armatures of American political power have just evolved out of convention, with no specific basis in policy.

[Servant Corps]

Because in the 1800's somebody figured out that since the President has to go around campaigning across the country, he winds up becoming a repository of people's expectations for the coming years.  This isn't strictly true, but it makes a good angle to go around saying you'll argue for the people's behalf.

That man is Andrew Jackson, who called himself "Tribune of the People" while he was President.

Basically, the President has amassed so much soft power and influence that critiques of the President's policy is known as "Imperial presidency". Altough it is very dependent on soft power and influence, and other people point out that sometimes, the President has very little power.

[Aqizzar]

Yes, Jackson was of course the first real populist President, but I wasn't willing to say that because I couldn't remember just how powerful an executive he was.  Thinking about it, I guess he really did start the trend, what with starting wars and effectively writing his own Indian policy.

That was a case study on American executive imperialism in fact.  The Chief Justice of the time rule that the Indians in Florida were entitled to their land and other protections, but Jackson just ordered the Army in anyway.  His specific statement was, "Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it."  Note that enforcing the rulings of the Supreme Court is the President's exact job.

A note on the consideration.  The term "Imperial Presidency" is a bit more specific than just the soft power of the office.  Under Nixon and Bush, it relates to the use of judicial artifice, rigged-up precedents, and departmental policy to turn all that soft power into inarguable statute law.

[Granite26]

My favorite scapegoat has always been Teddy Roosevelt, although the truth is, it's been a steady process throughout history. 

Power tends to obey its own laws of gravity, clumping up whenever it can.  The last 200 years have been a constant stream from local to federal level, and from legislative to executive.

It's in the nature of the design.  People originally didn't want the federal government to do anything, so they designed the worst possible 'decide to do anything' structure they could (congress).  Congress still can't do anything, but the President can (especially since congress tends to do a piss poor job protecting it's interests)  People want (stupid people) the federal government to do things, so it falls to the prez to lead.

[Andir]

Look, I get that you're reserved about Obama or whatever...

I never said such a thing, and I'd appreciate if you didn't assume such.  I'm more concerned as to why the President (whoever it is) feels that they are our "leader."

[Aqizzar]

Look, I get that you're reserved about Obama or whatever...

I never said such a thing, and I'd appreciate if you didn't assume such.  I'm more concerned as to why the President (whoever it is) feels that they are our "leader."

Apologies.  When I hear an argument that an office has too much power I assume it's a nameless indictment of whoever's in it at the time.

As for why, well, because a lot of citizens refer to him as such.  Admittedly, the selection is limited to say the least, but when more millions of people check your name on a ballot than any other guy running, you're entitled to think you're now, you know, in charge of something.

[Granite26]

No you aren't... you're entitled to think you've been hired for the job as listed...

[Jonathan S. Fox]

No you aren't... you're entitled to think you've been hired for the job as listed...

I'd say you're entitled to think you're hired to the job you said you'd do, which generally involves a great deal more than the listing would indicate. This all goes back to what Aquizzar was saying about the unprecedented responsibility and influence the President gains in the course of his (or her) extensive contact with the American people throughout the campaign. Granted, you could argue this is an inappropriate level of power for a President. Andrew Jackson had his detractors as well, and in his time, the Whig party was essentially the anti-Jackson party. But today, a Presidential hopeful unwilling to embrace this role is unlikely to be elected in the first place, being seen as weak and ineffective in executing the job they've been hired to do. Again going back to what Aquizzar said in his first post, this is a matter of convention, and not hardcoded policy.

[Granite26]

I wish I could argue that point, damn you....

[Hawkfrost]

No you aren't... you're entitled to think you've been hired for the job as listed...

I'd say you're entitled to think you're hired to the job you said you'd do, which generally involves a great deal more than the listing would indicate. This all goes back to what Aquizzar was saying about the unprecedented responsibility and influence the President gains in the course of his (or her) extensive contact with the American people throughout the campaign. Granted, you could argue this is an inappropriate level of power for a President. Andrew Jackson had his detractors as well, and in his time, the Whig party was essentially the anti-Jackson party. But today, a Presidential hopeful unwilling to embrace this role is unlikely to be elected in the first place, being seen as weak and ineffective in executing the job they've been hired to do. Again going back to what Aquizzar said in his first post, this is a matter of convention, and not hardcoded policy.

You spelt his name wrong.

[Aqizzar]

Aquizzar Aquizzar

You spelt his name wrong.

I've stopped caring.  I have a funny foreign name, and people are going to mispronounce it.

[Yanlin]

This thread intimidates me.

[Andir]

This all goes back to what Aquizzar was saying about the unprecedented responsibility and influence the President gains in the course of his (or her) extensive contact with the American people throughout the campaign.

This is why ( I assume ) the forefathers didn't draft the Constitution to describe us as a Democracy.  Since in a Democracy, the majority of the people decide who and what happens and who they want to be their figurehead.  It's a rather detrimental government for a minority (not racial, but someone with varying religion, morals, or what have you.)  The Presidential race is the only election race that many people care about.  They assume that this race determines the course of the next four years of the country.  I seriously wish our government was studied more (or taught better) in schools and reinforced to the children.  It kind of depresses me that so many people are ignorant of the law of the land and assume we are a Democracy with a powerful President.  It also depresses me that I was ignorant of these as well until this past year.

[Aqizzar]

...What do you think a democracy is then?  Yes, we have a Representative government, because in the 1780's tallying every vote on every issue in the country wasn't exactly feasible.  Also, bear in mind that when then talking about the Founder's intentions of majority rule, maybe 10% of people were actually eligible to vote.

But yes, I agree that better understanding of not just the letter of American government structure, but the realistic operation of it and the historical process and accident that made it this way is sorely needed in education.  It's amazing how much of American political theory and history goes completely unheeded in our basic education system.  Hell, most college history courses devote maybe a week or two to the causes and effects of the Civil War.