Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
They have a very important amount of power as do teh courts. The problem is that they represent 50 staes that all want more of the tax pie. That means that the presdient has last say unless they can override his veto. As far as foreign policy the presdient is the power there.It is setup basically so no one group gets complete power. That and the constition and the courts mean that we will never be say a socialist nation.Ceratinly not with a nation that is more and more evenly devided between republicans and democrats like since Reagan. Then there is a court that has definely taken a turn towards conservatism after like 50 years.The presidency is always about change really because the american people have no stomach for bad times now.It is said that a president is lucky if he makes one to two big changes in two terms as president and to do that he must have real priorites or get side tracked.Most make no signficant changes in their time that history notices.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it house and congress the ones that are running the show?
Not wholly.
When the executive power is in the hands of the legislative branch, the potential for abuse sky-rockets. Depending on your political leanings, you may find that beneficial. For instance, most leftists today will claim that you have an obligation to society... and that obligation is whatever society commands of you.
This is a Hobbesian view of government: There is no objective right and wrong. There is only what the Leviathan commands.
However, we, as a nation, follow a government based on natural law. We believe that there are objective rights and wrongs and those are the things we hold dear: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property). Because of our beliefs in this, we put up blockades, such as an executive capable of stopping the legislative, to help limit the tendency of government to move towards that oppressive state that we see in Hobbes' "Leviathan".
Further, when it comes to the Founders, even when you don't have an answer, they are always right... This system of government wasn't smacked together. It's actually an incredible, incredible architecture based on thousands of years of government.
When you read those guys and the history, you come to realize that it's not a government based on whether we have nuclear missiles or muskets or abbacusees or computers: They made a government based on human nature that transcends anything us mere mortals could see.
When you hear someone say "The Constitution is a beautiful document," if they're serious, they're talking about the immense genius. It really is a work of beauty.
Last edited by One Thousand; 05-22-2008 at 11:31 PM..
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.
When the executive power is in the hands of the legislative branch, the potential for abuse sky-rockets. Depending on your political leanings, you may find that beneficial. For instance, most leftists today will claim that you have an obligation to society... and that obligation is whatever society commands of you.
This is a Hobbesian view of government: There is no objective right and wrong. There is only what the Leviathan commands.
However, we, as a nation, follow a government based on natural law. We believe that there are objective rights and wrongs and those are the things we hold dear: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property). Because of our beliefs in this, we put up blockades, such as an executive capable of stopping the legislative, to help limit the tendency of government to move towards that oppressive state that we see in Hobbes' "Leviathan".
Further, when it comes to the Founders, even when you don't have an answer, they are always right... This system of government wasn't smacked together. It's actually an incredible, incredible architecture based on thousands of years of government.
When you read those guys and the history, you come to realize that it's not a government based on whether we have nuclear missiles or muskets or abbacusees or computers: They made a government based on human nature that transcends anything us mere mortals could see.
When you hear someone say "The Constitution is a beautiful document," if they're serious, they're talking about the immense genius. It really is a work of beauty.
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...
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.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.