Community >> View Post
·
Post By
mtyoung

In Reply To
Deborah

Subj: Re: no
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 02:05:25 pm EST
Reply Subj: Re: no
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:33:13 pm EST

Previous Post

> > 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.

> > > 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
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software