We made the presidency too powerful

Posted by searchamon17@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 44 comments

The fact that every four years, we end up in a situation where the one of the sides is this scared or angry - just goes to show that the presidency has too much power.

With the ruling about official actions from the Supreme Court, it’s more true now than ever.

There’s a reason why the founders wanted checks and balances, instead of resorting to executive actions.

We were already screwed because of political parties and coordination across branches, but since the overuse of EA since the Bush era by both parties and continued outsized influence of the executive, we are not in a good place.

To make it worse, it boggles my mind that we have notions of conservative and liberal judges. They shouldn’t be political.

Now, there’s no way to turn back the clock on the overrun window on any of it.

[-]

azsheepdog@reddit

This was a great conversation to have last decade or the decade before that or even 4-6 decades ago or more. but doing the day a president gets elected that 72 million people voted for and 67 million voted against seems a little mis-motivated.

Of course the founders didnt want a president that was a king or monarch. There is a reason the house only has a 2 year term and the president has a 4 year term. The house was supposed to have the most power. We have slowly eroded away the checks and balances over the last 200 years.

We need to abolosh the 435 member house cap and get back to 1 representative per 200-250k people. Undo the 17th amendment and restore the appointment of senators by the states to represent the states, abolish the 16th amendment allowing the federal government to directly tax the people and require all bills that need funding to be originated in the house. And let the 1300+ members of the house vote who is president . then the only person you have to worry about electing is your local house member. we could revolutionize how election day works.

[-]

searchamon17@reddit (OP)

I’m a heterodox, so the projection isn’t appreciated.

About the rest of the content, though - this is a constant conversation we should have been having, but sometimes, it’s hard for most of the public to see through the trees. Since the Bush era, the polarization has certainly made the overreach of the executive more pronounced in its illustration.

The wrong solutions keep getting deployed by both sides: let’s get our person in there. Instead: let’s limit the overreach and ensure congress does it roles in legislation and is more directive in its representation.

We need to find a way to incentivize congress to do its job, instead of delegating to the executive and judiciary.

Relegating the congress to choose the president is simply as recreation of the parliamentary system across the pond, introduces more biases, and erodes more checks and balances. We need to executive to be independent like the founders intended and more in check, just like other branches.

[-]

azsheepdog@reddit

our first 6 presidents were not democratically elected and there was nothing wrong with that regardless of how they do it across the pond.

[-]

searchamon17@reddit (OP)

By James Madison, states had started using popular vote to determine their electoral votes, instead of state legislatures. Since then, we’ve extended it across all the states with all eligible citizens, and that’s more democratic. Shocking you want to turn back the clock on a pillar of our democracy.

There are pros and cons with our systems and parliamentary systems, across the pond and world. There’s nothing inherently wrong with either.

But, the system we have from our founders allow for more checks and balances, and that’s what I want to preserve, especially in an overreaching executive - instead of turning back the clock on democracy with limiting how the president is chosen. And, that has nothing to do with what’s across the pond. It’s about the rest of the concerns I’ve listed out.

[-]

azsheepdog@reddit

They did not want a democracy.

James Madison believed that pure democracy could lead to instability and mob rule. He favored a republic where elected representatives would filter the will of the people.

Alexander Hamilton viewed pure democracy as impractical and prone to tyranny. He argued that a balanced republic was more stable and effective.

John Adams warned that democracy could lead to chaos and the erosion of personal security and property rights.

Thomas Jefferson while he supported the idea of democracy, he also recognized its flaws and the need for checks and balances to prevent tyranny.

https://www.usconstitution.net/founders-views-on-government/

They were right, specifically john adams.

[-]

searchamon17@reddit (OP)

You do realize citizens voting for a president definitionally constitutes being a republic, which is a form of democracy.

What you are referring to is direct democracy - where voters would directly vote on which laws to enact.

Hey man, you wanna strip people of their voting rights, Godspeed (sarcasm). Not a single person in this country is going to give that up, nor should we. Asinine and dangerous.

[-]

azsheepdog@reddit

Democracy is asinine and dangerous. We didnt vote for state senators until 1913. we made it 150 years just fine. The purpose is to restrict the federal governments power. by allowing direct voting for senators, outside influences could persuade the citizens to vote in senators that were pro federal government instead of appointing senators by the states to protect state rights.

The president was not supposed to be a position that anyone cared about , it was a figurehead for foreign relations. The fact that the common person care so much and that so many millions and billions are used to get their guy elected to the office shows how far and how corrupt the system in that if their guy gets elected they get rewarded by being able to feed from the government trough. So many presidents now are flat out bribing the people in order to get elected. vote for me and ill forgive your student loans, vote for me and ill pay for your healthcare.

Not a single person in this country is going to give that up,

sure no one wants to give up their power, the government has had power creep for over 200 years, the government is way more powerful than it should be and they don't want to give it up either. We lose our liberty because no one want to give up their power.

[-]

searchamon17@reddit (OP)

I obviously agree with you about unchecked power in our branches of government; hence, my post.

But, your remedy to strip voting rights is a dangerous departure from sanity for me. The founding fathers were not infallible. Every eligible citizen should be able to vote in a republic.

We don’t have to agree on this, and doesn’t seem like we are going to. Can’t say I had this on my bingo card today, for someone to suggest we need to return to times when fewer of us could vote, but hey, that’s what keeps life interesting, I guess

[-]

Alternative-Appeal43@reddit

Yep, started with Obama abusing TF out of "executive orders"

[-]

Butane9000@reddit

Correction, we made the federal government too powerful.

It's purpose is four fold. Provide for the common defense, be a single point of diplomacy for the states, to handle final judicial proceedings, and to handle certain economic matters.

Most of it's powers have grown due to over extension of the elasticity clause regarding economic powers.

17th Amendment broke the Senate which effectively removed the various state governments say. People considered the lack of senators a bug but as my friend has said it was a feature. As lacking senators to pass legislation the states picked up the job under the 10th Amendment.

People need to understand Republicans, Democrats, and in fact all political parties are private companies whose single goal is to get control of the federal government often to hand out benefits to themselves & their cronies.

Ultimately though I am hopeful with recent SCOTUS rulings especially regarding the Chevron defense getting gutted. They gave up not only their own power to determine legality but Congresses ability to legislate to unelected bureaucrats leading to the administrative state we have now. But with Chevron getting gutted not only will representatives & senators become more important but all those pesky regulations not backed by law are going to get gutted over time.

[-]

RepulsiveReception84@reddit

Big facts here - the President "Presides" over a meeting of the states.

That office is meant to have limited power.

Very, very limited.

The Powers That Be want Americans to care about the president and ignore the actual law makers and judges.

We've all fallen for it.

Tsk tsk.

[-]

B_i_llt_etleyyyyyy@reddit

The fact that every four years, we end up in a situation where one of the sides is this scared or angry - just goes to show that the presidency has too much power.

The thing is, this also happened routinely in the 19th Century, when the presidency was much, much less powerful than it is today. I think it's a byproduct of the party system more than anything else.

[-]

joeybevosentmeovah@reddit

Truly it shouldn’t matter that much how one single person occupies a seat. I didn’t vote and shame on everyone who thinks participating and consenting to this sham will ever make their life better

[-]

PirateBrail@reddit

Seems to me shit hit the fan when the dollar got its gold backing removed.

[-]

mtsmash91@reddit

Executive orders and no term limit judge appointments. The ones with the power could change it but they have to be humble enough to risk losing it for the greater good.

[-]

searchamon17@reddit (OP)

Agreed, but human nature lends itself to be selfish especially in the political arena. Every time the other party wins, they want to enact everything instead of curbing their power and power for those to come because they can’t justify it to their constituents.

The real chance we had was through the course of history to preserve the checks and balances that the founders gave us and build on it, instead of stripping it.

I think it’s too late to go back now, unfortunately. I wish it wasn’t so.

[-]

VexLaLa@reddit

The president def has too much power. But I strongly believe that it’s also the case that the most liberals and republicans (like the ones that actually care about politics) hate each other soo much… like to the core. That they refuse to believe any ideology, even if it’s objectively correct, if it belongs to the other side + a lot of fear mongering from the media that misleads the masses.

The moment trump got elected there were many smear pieces with headlines/main paras reading that xyz states made him win, these states are usually low in education, high in poverty and high in violence… like what? Then I saw the stats and the differences were so small, and that too mainly as the most populated states usually vote blue. But yeah, many a times the media has nothing to spew so they start spewing blatant hate and people follow.

[-]

redeggplant01@reddit

The Supreme Court hold the most unconstitutional power in the federal government, followed by the executive

[-]

heskey30@reddit

Unfortunately its explicitly constitutional, they just forgot to add checks and balances.

[-]

searchamon17@reddit (OP)

Exactly

[-]

searchamon17@reddit (OP)

This is what happens when Congress refuses to do its part and defer to both the executive and judicial, because they want to take no accountability for legislation and continue getting re-elected

[-]

Sexyfreakinllama@reddit

Very nicely worded

[-]

SoyInfinito@reddit

The president should have so LITTLE power it wouldn't matter who wins.

[-]

49Flyer@reddit

I agree with your sentiment especially regarding the overuse of executive actions by the past four administrations (although, in fairness, many of Trump's EAs were simply undoing Obama's), and if any Supreme Court were willing to rein in this practice I think the current Court is it. I'm not making a prediction, but I think we're closer than we've ever been to a victory in this area.

I disagree with your view on Presidential immunity, however. It is the job of Congress and the courts to keep Presidents in line and this has always been a political matter; if Presidents feared criminal prosecution by the next administration (which, given the wide ideological swings we have experienced over the past few election cycles, isn't too far-fetched) they would be effectively paralyzed. Perhaps you think that is a good thing, but the President does have certain legitimate powers that he needs to be able to exercise.

The Supreme Court did not rule that Presidents are above the law, only that actions taken in the course of their "core constitutional powers" have absolute criminal immunity and that other acts taken as part of a President's official duties carry a presumption of immunity. The specifics of what this all means will need to be decided in future cases, but I hardly think the Court's ruling represents a sea change at least in practice.

[-]

searchamon17@reddit (OP)

I would completely agree with you in a vacuum, but unfortunately, I do not think SOCTUS is apolitical, on either side. With the conservative majority in this case, they will continue to favor in Trump - which has not been limited government but limited accountability for him.

I do think it’s elevated risk to not disseminate what constitutes as official actions on such a landmark case. It could be argued that wasn’t the scope of the case, but it could also be argued - it was to provide Trump with more protections since the case was about this overreach.

We shouldn’t be in a place where we need another case in the lower courts and for it to finally be back with SCOTUS to get clarification. Because more damage could be caused by then due to the lack of clarification now.

Happy to hear a rebuttal

[-]

LasVegasE@reddit

That is what the Supreme Court and Congress is for, balance of power. Sadly Presidents have usurping the power of Congress for decades. Congress has literally just handed over authority to the Executive.

[-]

Gobiego@reddit

I think it would be more fair to say Congress abandoned their obligations. This also caused the problem with appointed departments creating rules out of thin air using the Chevron ruling. It was never supposed to be that way.

[-]

searchamon17@reddit (OP)

All because everyone in congress just cares about getting re-elected. We need term limits, so they actually are somewhat incentivized to their job

[-]

denzien@reddit

I'm not sure what term limits would do towards that goal, but opening elections up to many parties via improved voting processes would probably light a fire.

[-]

searchamon17@reddit (OP)

I think right now, everyone in congress defers their power to the executive and judiciary. This way, they never have to be accountable for any controversial legislation and can ensure a higher likelihood of getting re-elected. And, that can go on forever because there’s no term limits, so that’s their incentive.

We need them to do their job. Maybe if we place term limits, it may actually lend to them doing some of it because they can’t rely on cashing their checks with the government for most of their lives.

It still may not incentivize them, but the current rules certainly don’t

[-]

Illustrious-Fox4063@reddit

This 100%. Congress abdicated their responsibilities to the Executive because they can either blame the President if it goes wrong or claim part of the alcolades if it goes right but never have to be responsible when their elections come around. No vote record no fault.

[-]

Mello-Fello@reddit

Yep. Congressional laziness is a big part of the problem.

[-]

searchamon17@reddit (OP)

Short sighted, but that’s what we get with the same political parties across branches and institutions, federally and across state lines. This is the true duopoly

[-]

aristotleschild@reddit

To make it worse, it boggles my mind that we have notions of conservative and liberal judges. They shouldn’t be political.

It's SO GROTESQUE

[-]

Brizzle351@reddit

I've been saying this for years.

[-]

Strange_Potato4326@reddit

1000% couldn’t have said it better myself

[-]

Lakerdog1970@reddit

Oh totally. If you need any better example of how overpowered the executive branch is, look at how bummed out the liberals are today.

It really shouldn't matter that much who wins because Presidents shouldn't be THIS important.

Of course, it would be nice if Congress would do something besides spending bills and then leaving everything up to executive orders and edits from the agencies.

I will be sorta curious how the SCOTUS deals with Trumps executive orders. I have a feeling/hope that the SCOTUS isn't really "conservative"........they just are focusing the US to function the way we were all taught in civics class. I'd be in favor of that.

If you look at the Dobbs decision, they weren't really ruling on abortion.....just saying the Roe was flawed.

[-]

searchamon17@reddit (OP)

We keep figuring out the issue is gridlock in congress and keep finding worse solutions like EA/EOs. Making the situation much worse

[-]

Craigboy23@reddit

Well said

[-]

d_b_cooper@reddit

Preach it.