Is there a point to having a president?

[Coem]

Originally Posted by JTraik

Good to know that there are people out there with a solid understanding of the Constitution. I really encourage everyone who reads this thread and considers the OP's question to go and actually read the Constitution. You will see what makes America so great... the Constitution is an absolutely bullet-proof document and I encourage anyone to try and find a fundamental flaw in it. Our founding fathers were an incredibly genius bunch. And I just typed that last line before I saw One-Thousand's last paragraph!!!

It is true that there is very little executive prerogative but it is up the President to act and to propose actions. Congress' job is to create the parameters in which the President can act and the Supreme Court is there ensure that the other two are within the parameters of what the Constitution provides. Of course there is much more detail involved but for the content of this thread...

The fundamental flaw in the constitution is that it is all designed to prevent the average person from participating too much in government. Our founding fathers were actually scared stiff of what we would today call democracy. Hence, no direct elections of Presdents or Senators (since changed obviously) and monetary requirements for office holders.

Having studied both American and Canadian government, I've actually come to the opinion that the Canadian system (and other Parliamentary governments) is much more effective, efficient, and less secretive than the American system. You can even claim that it's far more democratic it certain aspects as well.

The constitution is not at all perfect and actually makes it really hard to get things done in this country. You have to give the founding fathers credit for trying to create something they felt was the best amalgam of all the enlightenment theories of the time, and something that has withstood the test of time, however it's far from "bullet-proof" in my opinion.

[One Thousand]

Originally Posted by Coem

The fundamental flaw in the constitution is that it is all designed to prevent the average person from participating too much in government.

Please specify and cite sources and cite implied premissees.

Our founding fathers were actually scared stiff of what we would today call democracy. Hence, no direct elections of Presdents or Senators (since changed obviously) and monetary requirements for office holders.

Please cite sources. And, should you have them, please cite the reasons they supported such.

Having studied both American and Canadian government, I've actually come to the opinion that the Canadian system (and other Parliamentary governments) is much more effective, efficient, and less secretive than the American system.

Effective and efficient relative to what goals?

Relevance of secretive? Please state.

The constitution is not at all perfect

Imperfect for what? Less desirable to attain what goals?

You have to give the founding fathers credit for trying to create something they felt was the best amalgam of all the enlightenment theories of the time, and something that has withstood the test of time, however it's far from "bullet-proof" in my opinion.

That's true. It's weak point is that it still depends on an electorate that has a basic grasp of government. However, you have to give them credit for a lot more than creating something that "felt" good. There are no new philosophies on government, as far as I know, that developed in the last two hundred years.

Please cite sources that inform your political beliefs.

[roberta]

Originally Posted by sean98125

I think it's pointless to have this big national beauty pageant every four years where the most popular kid in school gets elected. The founders never wanted the president to be elected by the people - they wanted an ad hoc group of electors to be selected by the states, presumably experts, to select the executive.

The constituency of the federal government is the union of state governments assembled in Congress - it was never intended to have direct authority over individual citizens. As such, there is no natural constituency for the office of President other than the federal government itself.

The president was meant to be more of a prime minister than anything else. The founding fathers did NOT want the citizens voting directly for him or else you wind up with the guy who panders the best rather than the most qualified person.

I admire your understanding of the Constitution. You inspire me to study it more deeply. Are you saying that States Rights should have more say so in what happens on an individual basis? Do you think that popular vote, by the people should be more on a local, or State level? What do you think of the current method of electing state delegates to represent the people? What about super delegates? From what I read, some of them take pay from the candidate that offers the most. I think things must have been a little different in the old days--when the Founding Fathers seemed to be more trustworty, with the good of the country in mind. I wouldn't want to change the Constitution--but I am wondering where are these Government people that we can trust to appoint a President. I agree that the average person might not vote for the most qualified person in a popular vote, and sometimes it can mean disaster for the country. People have a tendency to vote for the best hair do, tallest, prettiest, most handsome, and most charismatic candidate. That's what happened to Ron Paul, and Ross Perot--they weren't handsome enough. But---if the federal government has it's own agenda of whom they want for President--how do we know they are choosing the best person for us? I hope you will post more on this. You seem very smart.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by roberta

Are you saying that States Rights should have more say so in what happens on an individual basis?

100% absolutely positively YES... Each state was supposed to create laws that the state would abide by. If you didnt like the laws being created in your state, you could get up and move to a new state..

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Sure, to a degree. However, like them or not, I think everyone would agree that when Reagan replaced Carter we had significant changes, though Congress and the Senate remained with the same party in charge.

I think you just proved the question right there. The authority to implement economic changes through policy were driven by reagan in that era. However, it was a party based on credit card policy, enticing investors with schmooze promises. Should history be fair, reagan did cash in on long standing policies held for cold war from both dems and repubs, which should have been held high to say- this is what happens when we stick together on an issue. It happened on his watch, so repubs did it all by themselves? Fiscal collapse was USSR's own sword to fall upon. Their foundation was corrupted from day one.

International poker playing can only go so far... and negotiating with terrorists has proven it's worth. Let sound judgements be made on real merits of what works, and the full price to be paid for those solutions disclosed. What gets ommited from statistical considerations is not neccessarily worthless. Just a reflection of where people have put their values in an era. Common language is money, they speak money, but money cannot solve all things. Blindly feeding welfare with no plan for upward mobile and exit is as foolish as blindly going to war to accomplish what?

[harborlady]

Roberta, I'd suggest to you also read civilization and its discontents as well. Gives great insight as to the challenge going on in individuals and measuring degrees of sacrafice made as the price tag to participate in a larger civilization. It's very pertinent to how ahead of their times framers of constitution were in seeing the nature of human beings.

[skoro]

Originally Posted by nitokenshi

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it house and congress the ones that are running the show?

You're wrong.

Read up on the constitution as a starting place.

[Sparco]

Originally Posted by uglyblackjohn

While I believe that the President is more of a figurehead and not so much of a direct leader (Kings, Generals, Dictators). The office is important in establishing an identity for the direction and perception of our nation. When one looks back at a certain era and the President at the time, we generaly put one with the other. Lincoln - change, war, tragedy... Kennedy - hope, vision, youth,... Reagan - greed/prosperity, America first, conservatism,.. . The President can inspire (but not determine) both greatness and/or folly in his country.
The President is very important.

so are people who are in the unemployment line important... for the reasons youve named, Id say he can get in the same line and his salary distributed among the masses.....