Community >> View Thread

Author
Ironnewenglander




just wondering,how many of you think that future presidents should be stripped of some of their powers. i myself think that the president shouldn't be able to pardon anyone at all and to tell you the truth i don't think they should be commander and chief of the armed forces either.they should give that to a military officer.in order for him to be able to declare war though,he should go to the president first and the president would have to go to congress to ask permission to do so,if permission is denied that should be the end of it.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 1.0.7 on Windows 2000
mtyoung




> just wondering,how many of you think that future presidents should be stripped of some of their powers.

The power that the presidency currently has, has to be held by someone, either Congress or the President. If I had to chose, I would choose the President.

Congressmen are far more likely to be persuaded by outside sources, while the President is not.

The President is evaulated every 4 years, and if the people dont want him, they dont elect him.

>i myself think that the president shouldn't be able to pardon anyone at all

Where did this come from? I think Nixon should have been pardoned.

>and to tell you the truth i don't think they should be commander and chief of the armed forces either.they should give that to a military officer.

This is a really bad idea. If you have a military general, you are far more likely to have a military coup of the government. Most world powers have consolidated the executive and military commander positions because of this. I like the idea that most of the time, the President has no connection to the military before he starts office.

> in order for him to be able to declare war though,he should go to the president first and the president would have to go to congress to ask permission to do so,if permission is denied that should be the end of it.

In your situation, why not just have the general ask Congress for war?

I think a problem with this scenario is that sometimes military action should be swift and there might not be time to hold a congressional session. I like the idea that they passed during Vietnam where the President had to justify keeping the miltary in a foreign country within 90 days. I also think that every major military action should be justified to a commitee afterwards to see if the action was just.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Ironnewenglander




why do you think nixon should have been pardoned,he should have been sent to prison and an example would have been made of what happens when you pull a bunch of crap like he did while as president.would have made other presidents think twice before trying to pull something.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 1.0.7 on Windows 2000
Deborah




> > just wondering,how many of you think that future presidents should be stripped of some of their powers.
>
> The power that the presidency currently has, has to be held by someone, either Congress or the President. If I had to chose, I would choose the President.

Our current triune system isn't perfect, but it works as well as or better than anything anyone else has managed to come up with. Eliminating 1/3 of that would, IMNSHO, be a very bad thing.

>
> Congressmen are far more likely to be persuaded by outside sources, while the President is not.
>
Huh? That claim makes no sense at all. A president is human just like anyone else. And, if you think of it, far easier to persuade one single person that a group of hundreds.


> The President is evaulated every 4 years, and if the people dont want him, they dont elect him.
>
Ditto Congress.

> >i myself think that the president shouldn't be able to pardon anyone at all
>
> Where did this come from? I think Nixon should have been pardoned.
>
> >and to tell you the truth i don't think they should be commander and chief of the armed forces either.they should give that to a military officer.
>
> This is a really bad idea. If you have a military general, you are far more likely to have a military coup of the government. Most world powers have consolidated the executive and military commander positions because of this. I like the idea that most of the time, the President has no connection to the military before he starts office.
>
I agree that it is not just a good idea but vital that the military have a civilian leader. The military's job, by definition, is to seek and prepare military solutions. Someone more objective needs to decide if/when to use them.

As to the "no connection . . ." line, quite a few presidents are former military. Perhaps better phrasing would have been "no connection WHEN (not "before") he starts office."


> > in order for him to be able to declare war though,he should go to the president first and the president would have to go to congress to ask permission to do so,if permission is denied that should be the end of it.
>
> In your situation, why not just have the general ask Congress for war?
>
> I think a problem with this scenario is that sometimes military action should be swift and there might not be time to hold a congressional session. I like the idea that they passed during Vietnam where the President had to justify keeping the miltary in a foreign country within 90 days. I also think that every major military action should be justified to a commitee afterwards to see if the action was just.

Presidential emergency powers (which are supposedly temporary) aside, it is my understanding that the president already has to ask Congress for a declaration of war. The president can not do that unilaterally.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 on Windows 95
mtyoung




> why do you think nixon should have been pardoned,he should have been sent to prison and an example would have been made of what happens when you pull a bunch of crap like he did while as president.would have made other presidents think twice before trying to pull something.

Nixon should have been pardonded because it was the right thing to do at the time. The country needed to get over that crisis at the time. Nixon should have apologized, described in detail everything he knew, and Congress should have reprimanded him by saying what he did was wrong. Should he have went to prison? No.

Nixons only real crime was the cover up? Nixon had no knowledge about the initial breaking and entering. He only knew about the initial coverup and actively particapated in the later coverups and he gave his approval for those actions. Is this Right?

Its funny, because is in reality, Nixon didnt even need get the information he was breaking and entering for, since he won by a landslide in the election.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
mtyoung




> > > just wondering,how many of you think that future presidents should be stripped of some of their powers.
> >
> > The power that the presidency currently has, has to be held by someone, either Congress or the President. If I had to chose, I would choose the President.
>
> Our current triune system isn't perfect, but it works as well as or better than anything anyone else has managed to come up with. Eliminating 1/3 of that would, IMNSHO, be a very bad thing.

Agreed.

> > Congressmen are far more likely to be persuaded by outside sources, while the President is not.
> >
> Huh? That claim makes no sense at all. A president is human just like anyone else. And, if you think of it, far easier to persuade one single person that a group of hundreds.

The President is only going to run for reelection once, congressmen run for the rest of their lives.

A single congressman knows that since there are 534 other congressmen, that his actions will be less scruntinized. A President knows that all his actions will be under view.

Put it this way. Since my "claim makes no sense at all". If you had to get away with something major, such as taking a bribe, what position would you rather have, the Presidency or as a Congressman? Id chose as a congressman.

> > The President is evaulated every 4 years, and if the people dont want him, they dont elect him.
> >
> Ditto Congress.

Congressional stagnation. Over 90% of all congressmen are re-elected. Stagnation leads to corruption.

The Presidency has term limits, why not congresS?

> > >and to tell you the truth i don't think they should be commander and chief of the armed forces either.they should give that to a military officer.
> >
> > This is a really bad idea. If you have a military general, you are far more likely to have a military coup of the government. Most world powers have consolidated the executive and military commander positions because of this. I like the idea that most of the time, the President has no connection to the military before he starts office.
> >
> I agree that it is not just a good idea but vital that the military have a civilian leader. The military's job, by definition, is to seek and prepare military solutions. Someone more objective needs to decide if/when to use them.
>
> As to the "no connection . . ." line, quite a few presidents are former military. Perhaps better phrasing would have been "no connection WHEN (not "before") he starts office."

Yeah, I thought about that. But instead went with "most of the time". I would figure the majority of the Presidents never really served in the military (at least active duty in real combat).

In your propsed better phrase, it would imply that he lost his connection to the military, which he wouldnt have.

> > > in order for him to be able to declare war though,he should go to the president first and the president would have to go to congress to ask permission to do so,if permission is denied that should be the end of it.
> >
> > In your situation, why not just have the general ask Congress for war?
> >
> > I think a problem with this scenario is that sometimes military action should be swift and there might not be time to hold a congressional session. I like the idea that they passed during Vietnam where the President had to justify keeping the miltary in a foreign country within 90 days. I also think that every major military action should be justified to a commitee afterwards to see if the action was just.
>
> Presidential emergency powers (which are supposedly temporary) aside, it is my understanding that the president already has to ask Congress for a declaration of war. The president can not do that unilaterally.

The Presidet cannot declare war. But he sidesteps that by only asking Congress to declare war when he knows they will. If he knows they wont, he simply attacks anyway.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
WeaponBB7




> just wondering,how many of you think that future presidents should be stripped of some of their powers.

their not as powerful as some people believe they are limited

>i myself think that the president shouldn't be able to pardon anyone at all
i agree that the pardon can be missued

>to tell you the truth i don't think they should be commander and chief of the armed forces either.
they are over the Secretary of Defense thus they control the millitary

they should give that to a military officer.in order for him to be able to declare war though,he should go to the president first and the president would have to go to congress to ask permission to do so,if permission is denied that should be the end of it.
wow *eek* that how it works is america Great? \:\-D


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Tim Bateman




>... i don't think they should be commander and chief of the armed forces either.they should give that to a military officer.in order for him to be able to declare war though,he should go to the president first and the president would have to go to congress to ask permission to do so,if permission is denied that should be the end of it.

Armed Services officers, including the Chief of Staff (or whatever he's called on that side of the Atlantic), are not qualified to determine whether their country should go to war against another or not. It's not their function - it's a political decision. Neville Chamberlain, not Lord Gort, declared war on Germany in 1939.

You have a short enough leash described in your Constitution. Some may take the view that the watchdog of the Constitution has become a rabid hound that has stretched or slipped his leash. That is another debate.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 1.0.7 on Windows XP
Deborah




>
> > > Congressmen are far more likely to be persuaded by outside sources, while the President is not.
> > >
> > Huh? That claim makes no sense at all. A president is human just like anyone else. And, if you think of it, far easier to persuade one single person that a group of hundreds.
>
> The President is only going to run for reelection once, congressmen run for the rest of their lives.
>
> A single congressman knows that since there are 534 other congressmen, that his actions will be less scruntinized. A President knows that all his actions will be under view.
>
> Put it this way. Since my "claim makes no sense at all". If you had to get away with something major, such as taking a bribe, what position would you rather have, the Presidency or as a Congressman? Id chose as a congressman.

Ok, when you put it that way, I see what you mean. But I still disagree. Yes, it might be easier for someone in congress to sneak around. But as you also pointed out, a president has so much more influence.

>
> > > The President is evaulated every 4 years, and if the people dont want him, they dont elect him.
> > >
> > Ditto Congress.
>
> Congressional stagnation. Over 90% of all congressmen are re-elected. Stagnation leads to corruption.
>
> The Presidency has term limits, why not congresS?

:) IMO, both already have term limits. They're called the next election. ;\) If people don't vote them out of office, there isn't a reason for them to leave.

> >
>
> In your propsed better phrase, it would imply that he lost his connection to the military, which he wouldnt have.

Not at all. Maybe I wasn't clear either. I simply meant a person on active duty can't run for president. Any president has to be *former* (not current) military.
>
As to never having served: Washington, Grant, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy all come to mind. And I know I'm missing a lot more.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 on Windows 95
mtyoung




> > > > The President is evaulated every 4 years, and if the people dont want him, they dont elect him.
> > > >
> > > Ditto Congress.
> >
> > Congressional stagnation. Over 90% of all congressmen are re-elected. Stagnation leads to corruption.
> >
> > The Presidency has term limits, why not congresS?
>
> \:\) IMO, both already have term limits. They're called the next election. ;\) If people don't vote them out of office, there isn't a reason for them to leave.

The next election isnt a term limit 90% of the time.

And lets face it, people dont elect the best politician for the job, they elect the person most persuasive, or the richest, or the person with the most connections.

> Not at all. Maybe I wasn't clear either. I simply meant a person on active duty can't run for president. Any president has to be *former* (not current) military.

Can you be in the military and run for an elected position? I dont think you can, but I dont really know.

> As to never having served: Washington, Grant, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy all come to mind. And I know I'm missing a lot more.

And I would counter with Lincoln, FDR, Jefferson, Wilson, Truman, and Madison. I chose those because they were in a list of top 10 greatest Presidents. I would think that very few, Presidents were career military men (washington the only one I can think of off hand, maybe Eisenhower?). I would think most were only in the military to fight in a war (JFK, TR, USG)


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Deborah




>
> The next election isnt a term limit 90% of the time.

Yes, it still is. If people don't vote them out of office, that means they don't want them out of office. And if they want them there, they can stay. What you are talking about is both artificial and arbitrary. Why should anyone be forced out of an elected position when the electorate wants them to stay?

And yes, I know why there are term limits for the office of president. IMO, they are also artificial and arbitrary and might or might not serve a (or the intended) purpose.

> And I would counter with Lincoln, FDR, Jefferson, Wilson, Truman, and Madison. I chose those because they were in a list of top 10 greatest Presidents. I would think that very few, Presidents were career military men (washington the only one I can think of off hand, maybe Eisenhower?). I would think most were only in the military to fight in a war (JFK, TR, USG)

:) And that's fine. I was merely pointing out that there were presidents *with* military experience.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 on Windows 95
Reverend Meteor




> just wondering,how many of you think that future presidents should be stripped of some of their powers. i myself think that the president shouldn't be able to pardon anyone at all and to tell you the truth i don't think they should be commander and chief of the armed forces either.they should give that to a military officer.>>

I think the best thing would be for the President to have once been a military officer as opposed to always being a smarmy politician (they're all smarmy).

I think if you're going to lead the military into a war you need to have some war experience.

Reverend Meteor (I would rather the military be in charge rather than those shifty politicians)



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.9 on Windows XP
Tim Bateman




> I think if you're going to lead the military into a war you need to have some war experience.

The usual counter-argument to this is if you're in charge of the country's economy you need some experience starting, or at least running, a business. One can, of course, also argue that if you're in charge of the health system of a country you should have served time as a doctor, if you're in charge of the education system of a country you should have served time as a teacher, if you're passing legislation you should have served time as a lawyer... I'm sure everyone else can come up with more examples.

> Reverend Meteor (I would rather the military be in charge rather than those shifty politicians)

Logically, you'd prefer a military dictatorship to a democracy.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 1.0.7 on Windows XP
FZ




> just wondering,how many of you think that future presi
dents should be stripped of some of their powers. i myself think that the president shouldn't be able to pardon anyone at all and to tell you the truth i don't think they should be commander and chief of the armed forces either.they should give that to a military officer.in order for him to be able to declare war though,he should go to the president first and the president would have to go to congress to ask permission to do so,if permission is denied that should be the end of it.


This would be a disaster, hundreds of Presidents in Congress?


Posted with Mozilla 0.9.4.2 on Windows XP
Tim Bateman




> > just wondering,how many of you think that future presi
> dents should be stripped of some of their powers. i myself think that the president shouldn't be able to pardon anyone at all and to tell you the truth i don't think they should be commander and chief of the armed forces either.they should give that to a military officer.in order for him to be able to declare war though,he should go to the president first and the president would have to go to congress to ask permission to do so,if permission is denied that should be the end of it.
>
>
> This would be a disaster, hundreds of Presidents in Congress?

Isn't that the way it works now? I thought that's what you mean tby your post title.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 1.0.7 on Windows XP
Halo82




That a president shouldn't be able to declare war so easy. I understand there extreme circumstances but if a president says "we're going to war cause they have WMD's" and then lo and behold there are no WMD's then he should be impeached. Moral of the story is there shouldn't be a shadow of a doubt before going to war.

> just wondering,how many of you think that future presidents should be stripped of some of their powers. i myself think that the president shouldn't be able to pardon anyone at all and to tell you the truth i don't think they should be commander and chief of the armed forces either.they should give that to a military officer.in order for him to be able to declare war though,he should go to the president first and the president would have to go to congress to ask permission to do so,if permission is denied that should be the end of it.

*Disclaimer* I do not always think I'm right, I do not have a problem admitting I'm wrong, and I don't consider my opinion to be "fact". If I don't write IMO in front of everything I say or I don't tuck my tail between my legs everytime someone disagrees with me it's simply cause...I mean what I say. I don't say something unless I believe it to be true. So if someone tries to police my opinion or pick an arguement over something trivial all I'll simply say is "read the fine print" I also don't care If I make a grammatical or spelling error. Thank you, have a nice day, Hakuna Matata, Live long and Prosper.



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software