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.
We'll have disfunction until the voters elect a functional President and Congress. The bigger issue is that the country is so ideologically divided that at some point, the country is going to have to divide along ideological lines.
I think we have given the federal government too much power that it was never intended to have while at the same time reducing the power of the states. The federal government was designed to be limited, slow, and inefficient. It was supposed to have debate tied up as we see, with arguments reaching impasse in all but the most key aspects to which all could generally see and agree on.
Now it has all this power, all this authority and that core design is getting in the way. The obvious solution is to remove those powers from the government, place them back in the hands of the states and its people and greatly reduce the responsibility of the federal government.
By doing so, their inability to function efficiently will have limited effect on the states and people (ie working as intended).
Those advocating giving it more power are promoting overthrow of our system, our government and protections in order to serve their ideal as to some singular power utopia that dictates to the people their own well being. Frankly, I see calls for such as the same as arming and rushing our borders. It is sedition in civilized form.
Disagree with the OP. It's the first useful thing to happen in DC in at least the last 4 years...perhaps 8. While the reductions in spending increases do far to little, they are at least a tiny step in the right direction. Federal spending is up ~47% since just 2007. In what world can that be seen as sustainable? We need some fiscal control in DC, and yes, that means some administrators will have to figure out how to do their jobs and get the mission done with less additional money than they might want.
What is sad and pathetic is that congress and the president refuse do do their jobs and control spending without gimmicks like this and a bunch of finger pointing. Man the hell up, quit whining and do your damned jobs. Cut spending and balance the budget. It ain't that hard folks.
are you suggesting that the constitution is so flawed that it has caused the Presidency to be too strong and therefore the only solution is to give the President greater power?
That's the gist, yes. Conceding ever more power to the presidency has been the "solution" to conflict between the branches again and again. Most clearly in matters of war and foreign policy, but also in control of domestic administrative policy, and now, as we see, some suggestions of fiscal control as well.
Fine - perfectly normal and acceptable to do so. But I'd only point out that this analysis I'm offering is supported equally across the political spectrum. For every Norman Ornstein making these points, there's a Gene Healy making the same. And for every Roosevelt or Johnson, there has been a Reagan or GW Bush advancing the imperial presidency. This really isn't a party issue - it's structural, not partisan.
Disagree with the OP. It's the first useful thing to happen in DC in at least the last 4 years...perhaps 8.
I take it that by "it" you mean the sequester going into effect. But suppose the initiative in the Senate to give the President control over the cuts - in effect, setting a precedent transferring appropriations from Congress to the Executive - had gained traction. It didn't, but it easily could have, and might still.
From your partisan perspective, would you regard such an expansion of presidential power as a good thing? From my partisan perspective, I don't. And yet, some will always be found on both sides of the aisle to argue for it out of necessity, as the only way around deadlock - you can hear their voices now.
This is how we came to have an imperial presidency, and how it will continue to expand.
In other words, get rid of Congress and congressional oversight altogether.
Now there's a hell of an idea! Why don't we just make the Prime Minister of Britain our President as well! He can wear two hats and we can tear down the Capitol building and redevelop it into a new condominimum complex!
Who needs Congress when we can just turn everything over to the President?!
In other words, get rid of Congress and congressional oversight altogether.
Now there's a hell of an idea! Why don't we just make the Prime Minister of Britain our President as well! He can wear two hats and we can tear down the Capitol building and turn it into a new condominimum complex!
Who needs Congress when we can just turn everything over to the President?!
Yep, it is a means to solidifying power. It is a civilized coup and has been in motion for over a 100 years now.
Self fulfilled prophecy. Give authority to areas of the system that were never intended to have it. When it creates problems, advocate giving more authority to it as a solution, when more problems are created, advocate the same until all power is centralized, eliminating the entire purpose of the system in the first place.
We have been at war for over a century and our own people are oblivious.
In other words, get rid of Congress and congressional oversight altogether.
Now there's a hell of an idea! Why don't we just make the Prime Minister of Britain our President as well! He can wear two hats and we can tear down the Capitol building and redevelop it into a new condominimum complex!
Who needs Congress when we can just turn everything over to the President?!
Whoosh!
OP is advocating just the opposite. A parliamentary system would greatly diminish the power of the Presidency and would likely keep partisan gridlock from becoming the problem that it has.
It was Senate Republicans who (probably unconstitutionally) offered to hand more power to the President instead of actually coming up with a budget cut proposal.
I take it that by "it" you mean the sequester going into effect. But suppose the initiative in the Senate to give the President control over the cuts - in effect, setting a precedent transferring appropriations from Congress to the Executive - had gained traction. It didn't, but it easily could have, and might still.
From your partisan perspective, would you regard such an expansion of presidential power as a good thing? From my partisan perspective, I don't. And yet, some will always be found on both sides of the aisle to argue for it out of necessity, as the only way around deadlock - you can hear their voices now.
This is how we came to have an imperial presidency, and how it will continue to expand.
My bad. YOu are quite correct, I was referring to sequestration. It is absolutely the right thing to do...congress and the president need to quit being babies and accept credit for it. In honesty, they need to be applauded for it...not hiding because some special interest group looses there pet handout. Act like frickin' adults people.
OP is advocating just the opposite. A parliamentary system would greatly diminish the power of the Presidency and would likely keep partisan gridlock from becoming the problem that it has.
It was Senate Republicans who (probably unconstitutionally) offered to hand more power to the President instead of actually coming up with a budget cut proposal.
I guess you missed this part of the OP?
Quote:
The only way out is to take the logic of the last century to its conclusion, and give the imperial presidency sufficient budgetary power to end the possibility of a situation like the one we are now in, of permanent fiscal crisis.
Quote:
It's probably only a matter of time before something similar is made a permanent feature of the working constitution, because handing more power to the plebiscitary elective monarchy headquartered at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is the only way to solve the "separation of powers" stalemate.
In other words, give power to the President that is currently required by the Constitution to be a power reserved for the House of Representatives.
I think you need to re-read the OP.
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.
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.
