• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the US government have separation of powers?

Can and should separation of powers exist?

  • Yes, as the Founders intended

  • Yes

  • No

  • No, I believe in Unitary Executive Theory

Results are only viewable after voting.
spud_meister

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
37,493
Reaction score
22,830
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Beginning under Bush, accelerating under Obama and culminating in Trump, the executive branch of the government has seized more power for itself. Now the legislature is rendered useless, and the judiciary toothless, can and should the government have separation of powers?
 
spud_meister said:
Beginning under Bush, accelerating under Obama and culminating in Trump, the executive branch of the government has seized more power for itself. Now the legislature is rendered useless, and the judiciary toothless, can and should the government have separation of powers?
Click to expand...
Funny, but I recall that to be a topic discussed when I was in school and Harry Truman was President, and Woodrow Wilson and events in the year 1913 were what was being talked about.
 
Good question. So far the courts are trying to maintain separation of powers. It all depends on what SCOTUS will do.
 
spud_meister said:
Beginning under Bush, accelerating under Obama and culminating in Trump, the executive branch of the government has seized more power for itself. Now the legislature is rendered useless, and the judiciary toothless, can and should the government have separation of powers?
Click to expand...
What the US has that is creating governance issues is competing legislative branches. That's a situation that never fails to bring about government disfunction.

The House, Senate, and Executive are all trying to legislate. They have successfully politicized the SCOTUS to take sides.

That situation doesn't exist in most other developed countries.
 

Does the US government have separation of powers?​


Not at the moment, we blessedly have a KING now.

MAGA!!!
 
If we are being honest, the expansion of the so called "Administrative State" goes back to the 1920s and 1930s. I would argue that is perhaps the starting point of this course we are on where the Executive Branch became too powerful with very little checks and balances.

Coolidge to Hoover to FDR to Truman there were several tests that changed the lines on Legislative function against Executive authority. Say, the late 1930s up to WWII started to see some of these impacts to the role of a President.

J. W. Hampton v. United States decision of 1928 allowed Congress could delegate legislative function assuming "guided action." The New Deal tested this, and we ended up with a slew of Executive actions leading up to Congress giving way with The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. Departments were formed and expanded on the backs of voter sentiment from The Great Depression up through WWII allowing for every President since to slowly expand power and capability.

That period altered the course of the use of Executive Orders, how Presidents handled various Departments, how Supreme Court wrestled with the subject from then to current. On paper we have Separation of Powers in the Constitutional sense, how political parties take advantage of various duopolistic conditions puts further stress on where these lines actually are in practice.

People like Bush 43, Obama, Trump and to an extent Biden are not the problem but rather were empowered by actions set a long way back.

I would further argue that when mentality of any President suggests pushing whatever boundaries are left we already have a problem. The original intention of the Constitution was to make it difficult on those elected or appointed. President to Congress to the Supreme Court the intention was to make it inherently problematic to blur lines. Duopoly of political power wrecked that concept.

Today it is do whatever you want and see if anyone bothers to challenge.
 
"Does the US government have separation of powers?"

Yes, and more so than most first world democracies.
 

Does the US government have separation of powers?​


spud_meister said:
Beginning under Bush, accelerating under Obama and culminating in Trump, the executive branch of the government has seized more power for itself. Now the legislature is rendered useless, and the judiciary toothless, can and should the government have separation of powers?
Click to expand...
@OrphanSlug has correctly hit the nail on the head.

On paper we have Separation of Powers in the Constitutional sense​

That is, the Constitution clearly establishes the condition known as "Separation of Powers", with each of the three branches having clearly defined roles and powers. But, as OrphanSlug says, Congress has delegated powers to the Executive Branch which expanded the powers of the President. These various delegations of powers culminated in the National Emergencies Act of 1976.

The National Emergencies Act (NEA) (Pub. L. 94–412, 90 Stat. 1255, enacted September 14, 1976, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1601–1651) is a United States federal law passed to end all previous national emergencies and to formalize the emergency powers of the President.​
​
The Act empowers the President to activate special powers during a crisis but imposes certain procedural formalities when invoking such powers. The perceived need for the law arose from the scope and number of laws granting special powers to the executive in times of national emergency. Congress can terminate an emergency declaration with a joint resolution enacted into law.[1] Powers available under this Act are limited to the 136 emergency powers Congress has defined by law.[2]​
​
The legislation was signed by President Gerald Ford on September 14, 1976.[3] As of March 2020, 60 national emergencies have been declared, more than 30 of which remain in effect.[1][4]​

Since then, every President has invoked the Act for various reasons, which has allowed them to do things that normally would, according to the Constitution, require Congressional action to accomplish.

So, spud_meister, those Presidents you mentioned have not "seized more power". Congress gave them the power.
 
It's currently an autocracy. We'll see if the republic can be restored.
 
The unitary theory states that, within the Executive Dept, the executive power is vested with the president, and nobody else
It's not 'anti-separation' of power.
 
Politics is awash in money. The fact that legislators can be cowed by primary threats seems to indicate that there is much more to the jobs than the actual salaries. The system has been severely tested and the outcome is still questionable. I think that opportunistic people have seen flaws in the system and pushed the limits of their power. The voting public is too wrapped up in themselves and can’t be bothered to keep up with events that don’t touch their lives directly. The judiciary has always been “toothless,” as the law is only an agreement if all parties comply with the words written on paper. The US Constitution was ratified when there were 13 former colonies and it would be almost impossible to pass an amendment now, given how large and divisive the country has become. It’s no longer a “living document, imo. The “separation of powers” only exists if everyone plays by the rules.The wild card is the military, imo.
 
Helix said:
It's currently an autocracy. We'll see if the republic can be restored.
Click to expand...

autocracy​

[ aw-tok-ruh-see ]

noun​

plural autocracies.
  1. government in which one person has uncontrolled or unlimited authority over others; the government or power of an absolute monarch.
  2. a nation, state, or community ruled by an autocrat.
  3. unlimited authority, power, or influence of one person in any group.

No, we're not even close to being an autocracy. Truth be told, we just voted one out.
 
EdwinWillers said:

autocracy​

[ aw-tok-ruh-see ]

noun​

plural autocracies.
  1. government in which one person has uncontrolled or unlimited authority over others; the government or power of an absolute monarch.
  2. a nation, state, or community ruled by an autocrat.
  3. unlimited authority, power, or influence of one person in any group.

No, we're not even close to being an autocracy. Truth be told, we just voted one out.
Click to expand...
Turn off the faux.
 
EdwinWillers said:
Well there's your problem - it was the DICTIONARY.
Click to expand...
So many things are. The dictionary is considered to be a gateway drug by some, but not me. faux, on the other hand, is meth. Me, I prefer the dictionary.
 
spud_meister said:
Beginning under Bush, accelerating under Obama and culminating in Trump, the executive branch of the government has seized more power for itself. Now the legislature is rendered useless, and the judiciary toothless, can and should the government have separation of powers?
Click to expand...

You have no correct option.

It did, under Trump it no longer does.
 
EdwinWillers said:

autocracy​

[ aw-tok-ruh-see ]

noun​

plural autocracies.
  1. government in which one person has uncontrolled or unlimited authority over others; the government or power of an absolute monarch.
  2. a nation, state, or community ruled by an autocrat.
  3. unlimited authority, power, or influence of one person in any group.

No, we're not even close to being an autocracy. Truth be told, we just voted one out.
Click to expand...

The legislative branch has ceded all power to the executive in everything but name and the executive has blatantly stated that they will not abide by judicial decisions and judges have noted a failure of the executive to follow its rulings…

It is actually correct at this moment in time.

That may change if congress grows a spine.

But fascists like you, I just don’t get it, you want to pretend what’s happening, isn’t exactly what’s happening, but you love what’s happening.

Just own it.
 
Yes. The executive has way too much power, the judiciary has slightly too much power, and the legislature is far too weak.

IMO we need to empower the legislature to reclaim its power. Power abhors a vacuum, and if the legislature does not or cannot step up, the other branches will glady claim its power.

Some changes that I think would help:
  • Normalize discharge petitions. It shouldn't be viewed as political disloyalty. Any bill that has the support of the majority should be able to be voted on, whether the leadership likes it or not.
  • Have a computer draw the congressional districts according to a simple shortest split-line algorithm. This will result in fewer safe seats, which will reduce extremism and gridlock.
  • More funding for congressional staff. This usually goes overlooked, but a major cause of congressional paralysis is that the staffers who write the bills, read the bills, and provide policy analysis are overworked and short-staffed. This means fewer things can get done, which means more gets delegated to the executive branch.
 
Helix said:
So many things are. The dictionary is considered to be a gateway drug by some, but not me. faux, on the other hand, is meth. Me, I prefer the dictionary.
Click to expand...
The dictionary is a "gateway drug"? "FOX is "meth"?

Maybe it's time you turned both back on - cuz this has absolutely nothing to do with FOX and your comment absolutely nothing to do with reality.

Here are some links, if that'll help:

Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Video

Breaking News, Latest News and Current News from FOXNews.com. Breaking news and video. Latest Current News: U.S., World, Entertainment, Health, Business, Technology, Politics, Sports.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
www.dictionary.com

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
www.dictionary.com www.dictionary.com
 
EdwinWillers said:
The dictionary is a "gateway drug"? "FOX is "meth"?

Maybe it's time you turned both back on - cuz this has absolutely nothing to do with FOX and your comment absolutely nothing to do with reality.

Here are some links, if that'll help:

Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Video

Breaking News, Latest News and Current News from FOXNews.com. Breaking news and video. Latest Current News: U.S., World, Entertainment, Health, Business, Technology, Politics, Sports.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
www.dictionary.com

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
www.dictionary.com www.dictionary.com
Click to expand...
I won't be watching faux again. I escaped.
 
spud_meister said:
Beginning under Bush, accelerating under Obama and culminating in Trump, the executive branch of the government has seized more power for itself. Now the legislature is rendered useless, and the judiciary toothless, can and should the government have separation of powers?
Click to expand...
We don’t have separation of powers now because Trump and Musk have terrorized House and Senate Republicans into absolute fealty. We could regain separation of powers if next year’s elections result in Democrats regaining power in either or preferably both bodies of Congress.
 
No.
 
As it stands now the Separation of powers/checks and balances have been gelded.

President Trump will not obey a SC decision he disagrees with.

President Trump will never be impeached by a GOP HoR majority.

Any questions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom