• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

"Is the Presidency Driving Us Nuts?"

eohrnberger

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
37,155
Reaction score
24,767
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I am all for cutting the power of the Presidency by a LOT. The War Powers Act needs more teeth and the scope of Executive Orders needs to be reigned in.
In the last, oh dozen or so, sessions of congress, congress hasn't been doing their job, and the executive branch has stepped in to fill the gap, and then to accomplish their policy aims through executive fiat, i.e. executive orders.

If you want to take this power of the Presidency by a LOT, you are also going to have to have congress get off their fat asses, off their political games, and do their jobs.

None of this I'm against, and am rather for.
 

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,640
Reaction score
7,634
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I am all for cutting the power of the Presidency by a LOT. The War Powers Act needs more teeth and the scope of Executive Orders needs to be reigned in.
Absolutely agree about the War Powers Act, but I would say any law is only as good as the humans that enforce it. Congress has never obeyed that worthy statute as long as it's been in existence.

An excellent article from NR, and though they would rather bash FDR, the modern truth is that the Neocons bragged about their notion of the Unitary Executive, and I don't think NR mentioned that modern fact. Dick Cheney could not say enough about the Unitary Executive, and Barack Obama embraced the notion strongly.

Yes, POTUS is these days seen as a Monarch by many in this country. Certainly today's media treats him as one.
 

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,640
Reaction score
7,634
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I've been on that beat for years. We're a republic. The President is a servant. He's there solely as the chief administrator, to carry out what Congress enacts.
More precisely, he is there to honor his oath of office, to protect and defend the US Constitution.
 

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,640
Reaction score
7,634
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I have advocated a Constitutional amendment which keeps Congress from passing off its responsibility to legislate to executive agencies.
That's a nice thought, but if Congress cannot presently honor their oath of office, I cannot imagine how another amendment will change anything.
 

Rexedgar

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
28,035
Reaction score
16,737
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
More precisely, he is there to honor his oath of office, to protect and defend the US Constitution.

That ship has sailed in this Administration.
 

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,640
Reaction score
7,634
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

Fishking

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
21,023
Reaction score
6,651
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What do you think about Cost's comment about the "early seedbed of presidential mania" being cultivated by right-wing conspiracy theorists such as David Brock that bore hateful fruit in the aughts? That's when I think the pathology manifested. I remember a time when Dubya attended a performance at the Ford Theater and partisans on the board where I was then posting and elsewhere expressing the hope that the President would at least fall off the balcony and die. I couldn't even believe it!

Sigh, and now that is "back-in-the-day." I'm still appalled, but I'm no longer shocked by the venom.
I think it's silly as while the right-wing is definitely deeply involved, they aren't leading the way.
 

nota bene

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
58,482
Reaction score
32,162
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think it's silly as while the right-wing is definitely deeply involved, they aren't leading the way.
But the reference is to the "aughts"--the beginning of the century.
 

Fishking

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
21,023
Reaction score
6,651
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
But the reference is to the "aughts"--the beginning of the century.
As was pointed out, the biggest growth of presidential power was under FDR, who came very close to completely destroying our system of government, by his attempt to undermine the Supreme Court.
 

nota bene

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
58,482
Reaction score
32,162
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
As was pointed out, the biggest growth of presidential power was under FDR, who came very close to completely destroying our system of government, by his attempt to undermine the Supreme Court.
My father, who was overly fond of intoning, used to intone, "When the history of the destruction of the United States is written, the blame will be on Franklin Delano Roosevelt." He couldn't even say "FDR" without sneering. ;)
 

Rexedgar

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
28,035
Reaction score
16,737
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
My father, who was overly fond of intoning, used to intone, "When the history of the destruction of the United States is written, the blame will be on Franklin Delano Roosevelt." He couldn't even say "FDR" without sneering. ;)

There are many of generation that lived through the Great Depression and WWII that feel the same as to FDR.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,834
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Jay Cost at National Review argues that in fewer than 70 years, we have developed a “pervasive sense of presidential omnipotence and omniscience,” the notion that a President is all-powerful and everywhere, and that this may be driving us all crazy. In a republic, centering government power around one person and making that person a celebrity superstar is not very republican, he says, and adds:

The fact that any president could rile up the nation as Trump has is an illustration of how overgrown the executive power has become. The notion of “coequal branches” is a 20th-century invention. For most of the nation’s history prior to the Great Depression, the president played second fiddle to Congress. This was by constitutional design. The Framers envisioned the legislature, not the president, as the fount of republican authority, and they designed a government accordingly.

<<<<Albqowl snipped out content here to conform to character limit for post>>>>

I’m with the author: I too hope that the “lemonade” here is that perhaps the Trump administration is exposing institutional flaws that will lead to the scaling back of the Executive and the reformation and restoration of the Congress.
Great post Nota Bene, but too many people have rejected the constitutional process intellectually, emotionally, philosophically. They want a king. A king who will make things right. A king who will establish a government that creates utopia as they envision it. A king who will punish or vanquish the people they hate and embrace themselves as the privileged class. And that makes the executive larger than life and far more important than anything the founders intended.

Those of us who still respect and revere constitutional principles want:

--The executive to perform the responsibilities assigned to that office by the Constitution. He should have no power to alter, change, dismiss, or refuse to enforce the laws passed by the people's representatives. He certainly is given no constitutional authority to make executive orders that have the force of law.

--All laws, rules, regulations of all kinds--those that have the force of law--at the federal level should be considered, debated, and voted by the people's elected representatives according to the process specified in the Constitution. No law, rule, or regulation should ever be passed and signed into law by the President without citing the specific constitutional authority that justifies it. A congressperson's or senator's vote should be clear that the person voting has read the legislation in its entirety and he/she is approving it.

--Those appointed or hired as government employees or aides should implement the laws passed by the people's elected representatives, period. Unelected faceless bureaucrats have no constitutional authority to make rules and regulations that have the force of law, and yet we have allowed such people to make thousands upon thousands of such rules and regulations constituting hundreds of thousands of pages in the national register that have the force of law. There are so many with so many overlaps and contradictions that it is probable that every U.S. corporation is committing at least one felony every single day and perhaps each and every one of us too. That gives government power that it was never intended to have.

--The purpose of the courts is to settle disputes or questions of the intent and application of the law. The Constitution gives the courts no authority of any kind to change the law or make their own rulings that then have the force of law.

But all that is out the window when you have a king. A king that is either revered or worshiped as the people's savior, or is reviled and hated because he is not of the proper 'royal' (political) blood. And depending on the role the people assign to him, he gets all the credit for anything good and any who oppose him get all the blame for anything bad. Or if he is from the wrong 'royal line' he will be blamed for anything bad and any who oppose or thwart him will be praised as virtuous and honorable. (And their posts are liked a lot on message boards.)

With an education system and MSM who mostly promote the king concept and no longer teach Constitution as it was intended if they teach it at all, I don't know that we can reverse this. I have long believed that we are the last generation who will be able to turn it around, and I fear we may have already passed the tipping point.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
55,717
Reaction score
14,088
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Jay Cost at National Review argues that in fewer than 70 years, we have developed a “pervasive sense of presidential omnipotence and omniscience,” the notion that a President is all-powerful and everywhere, and that this may be driving us all crazy. In a republic, centering government power around one person and making that person a celebrity superstar is not very republican, he says, and adds:

The fact that any president could rile up the nation as Trump has is an illustration of how overgrown the executive power has become. The notion of “coequal branches” is a 20th-century invention. For most of the nation’s history prior to the Great Depression, the president played second fiddle to Congress. This was by constitutional design. The Framers envisioned the legislature, not the president, as the fount of republican authority, and they designed a government accordingly.

Cost observes that when Teddy Roosevelt reinvigorated the Presidency, his opponents mocked him for it, and he blames “Progressive Democrats” assuming power under Wilson and certainly under FDR for “giving the president a leadership role that he had only occasionally possessed before.”

He also notes that FDR’s admin was the first to exploit mass-communications technology. With successive admins, “Presidential exposure has scaled up accordingly.” His opinion:

I think one reason for these bipartisan manifestations of presidential derangement syndrome is the mythological foundation of the modern presidency. A core operating assumption of the office is that one human being can possibly speak for the national interest generally understood. That is fanciful. At most, the president will always express a particular view of the national interest, thereby creating the potential for cognitive dissonance in a sizable minority of the country. Because he is now able to speak to us so often, this mental discomfort can be nearly constant for his opponents. And because he is now so powerful, he also makes it seem to them that he is ruining the country. Trump & Obama Derangement Syndrome Rooted in Myth of President as King | National Review

I’m with the author: I too hope that the “lemonade” here is that perhaps the Trump administration is exposing institutional flaws that will lead to the scaling back of the Executive and the reformation and restoration of the Congress.
The fact is that our current government 200 years ago didn't have half the power that it has.
over 200 years our government has slowly but consistently amassed more power than what it should have.

a lot of this was through supreme court rulings and other various laws that were not overturned.
Now it is a monster out of control and the rule by fiat that has occured under obama has only made it that much worse.

an EO was designed to define some ambiguity in the law not make or change or create law. that is the job of congress.
over the years though more and more presidents act out on their own which is not how it is supposed to work.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,834
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
The fact is that our current government 200 years ago didn't have half the power that it has.
over 200 years our government has slowly but consistently amassed more power than what it should have.

a lot of this was through supreme court rulings and other various laws that were not overturned.
Now it is a monster out of control and the rule by fiat that has occured under obama has only made it that much worse.

an EO was designed to define some ambiguity in the law not make or change or create law. that is the job of congress.
over the years though more and more presidents act out on their own which is not how it is supposed to work.
I have always believe that up to the TR administration, the government was pretty much in check and operating mostly constitutionally--there were occasional veers off the straight and narrow but for the most part, those elected to high office maintained constitutional principles. It was the Teddy Roosevelt that turned things on their head. He was the first to reject the concept that elected officials can do only what they are authorized to do by the Constitution. He pushed a concept that elected officials can do anything that isn't specifically forbidden by the Constitution. And he, like FDR, packed the court system with judges who would not interfere with that concept. He was the first 'king' in what would become pretty much an unbroken line of them, each assuming more personal power as time passed.

That is what started the snowball rolling. Slowly and unobtrusively at first on a very gentle incline. But subsequent Presidents did nothing to reverse that interpretation and it got a huge shove in the FDR administration. Ever since then it is been picking up mass and velocity until it has become the massive, unmanageable, unknowable, and uncontrollable entity that the U.S. government is today.

I honestly think President Trump was elected as our last best chance to smash it to smithereens or at least fragment it so that we could begin reclaiming our constitutional protections and a government by the people. I still believe, perhaps without putting it into the words I would use, that he has the same instincts. But he likely won't be allowed to accomplish as much as we who voted for him had hoped.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,901
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This is actually a fantastic point, I agree with all of it, great post. Unfortunately, the power of the cult of personality that Trump has created has driven a division that far exceeds what a president should ever be able to do. When folks hate each other over which political party they support, something's wrong. Disagree, sure, it's been that way forever...but the hate I see, and correct me if I'm wrong, between supporters of different leanings is out of control. My honest prayer for you guys is that the next president you get is mind numbingly boring...you guys could use the break. ;)




You act like this started under trump.
 

OlNate

Shameless Canuck
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
Messages
16,929
Reaction score
9,424
Location
Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
You act like this started under trump.
At the risk of walking into another Rev-Bomb...

I don't think so...if that's how I came across, that's not what I was trying to suggest. But I do think Trump has taken it to an unprecedented level. I'd be open to being corrected with examples, but certainly in my recollection I can think of no one that used the cult of personality to drive as much impact, for better or worse, into the American political climate. Even during Obama it wasn't *this* bad between the right and the left...it was getting worse, sure, and there was lots of bad behavior, but I don't think anyone would seriously suggest it's as bad as now.

So, Rev, what do you think? *bracing for a beating*
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,901
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
At the risk of walking into another Rev-Bomb...

I don't think so...if that's how I came across, that's not what I was trying to suggest. But I do think Trump has taken it to an unprecedented level. I'd be open to being corrected with examples, but certainly in my recollection I can think of no one that used the cult of personality to drive as much impact, for better or worse, into the American political climate. Even during Obama it wasn't *this* bad between the right and the left...it was getting worse, sure, and there was lots of bad behavior, but I don't think anyone would seriously suggest it's as bad as now.

So, Rev, what do you think? *bracing for a beating*



So you didn't see this coming? I find the beginning of it happened with reagan. which was the origin of the "republicans are dumb racists" schtik. the republicans doubled down during clinton. bush I was harmless and people sort of left him alone. Bush II the left brought it to an absurd level, which was the start of the modern us vs them schizm. the response to obama was reactionary to that but both sides doubled down on thier positions. Trump actually resists and fights back to the division and as a result the left has lost all composure when dealing with him.


Remember, I have a 21 point list of issues, actual issues I would agree with any leftist on regarding trump. Instead, we argue he said she said, and fake scandals created by the media. It's sad really. because people leave logic at the door. Trump saying or not saying haiti the ****hole is a ****hole is not news. books of admitted lies is not news. N. Korea is news, immigration reform itself is news, all these things that are news are not discussed, it's all about how can we call trump a racist now, his mental health, and how he feeds ****ing fish. It's really sad to see how dumbed down the debate has become led by a hostile media that tells people what to get mad about.


The guy literally re-instated clintons tanks for cops program and his AG rescinded the cole memo, NONE of you have ever commented or started a thread on it. you all are all to busy getting butthurt over salty language about ****ty countries state of affairs.


Why do people leave haiti?

if it's not a ****hole. why are they leaving?
 

OlNate

Shameless Canuck
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
Messages
16,929
Reaction score
9,424
Location
Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
So you didn't see this coming? I find the beginning of it happened with reagan. which was the origin of the "republicans are dumb racists" schtik. the republicans doubled down during clinton. bush I was harmless and people sort of left him alone. Bush II the left brought it to an absurd level, which was the start of the modern us vs them schizm. the response to obama was reactionary to that but both sides doubled down on thier positions. Trump actually resists and fights back to the division and as a result the left has lost all composure when dealing with him.


Remember, I have a 21 point list of issues, actual issues I would agree with any leftist on regarding trump. Instead, we argue he said she said, and fake scandals created by the media. It's sad really. because people leave logic at the door. Trump saying or not saying haiti the ****hole is a ****hole is not news. books of admitted lies is not news. N. Korea is news, immigration reform itself is news, all these things that are news are not discussed, it's all about how can we call trump a racist now, his mental health, and how he feeds ****ing fish. It's really sad to see how dumbed down the debate has become led by a hostile media that tells people what to get mad about.


The guy literally re-instated clintons tanks for cops program and his AG rescinded the cole memo, NONE of you have ever commented or started a thread on it. you all are all to busy getting butthurt over salty language about ****ty countries state of affairs.


Why do people leave haiti?

if it's not a ****hole. why are they leaving?
Ok, I'll accept your analysis of how the division began and progressed...it rather coincides with the acceleration of the furthering of social issues by the left during those years, and the increased pressure the left put on resolving them. A big difference between the left and the right has always been pace, and so I can see how this division grew in direct correlation to the further of social issues, and the resulting pushback.

But I believe Trump was different in the fact that he weaponized the division, or at minimum harnessed it to secure his win. He did not shy away from creating more, rather he put the pedal to the metal, increasingly as the response from the GOP base showered him with approval. This represents a new response to the division that was brewing among the citizenry...again, I'm open to being corrected, but I don't think any presidential candidate approached an election quite like Trump did, with sewing division being a key component of his (or his handlers') strategy to win. By the way, I hated HRC's "deplorable" designation, too, for the same reason. It was an ugly, ugly election.

The "****hole" comment, if it happened, is rather insignificant to me, to be honest... I mean, it's utterly gross, but gross is what I've come to expect. I can't think any lower of the guy, so new infractions are rather meaningless...the worst is the worst, regardless to what you add to it. But, the tastelessness of it coming from the President of the United States of America, is staggering to most folks. It's in the same league as the Queen of England being featured in a bukake film (exaggerating, of course, but hopefully you get the gist of what I'm saying). Regardless of what you or I may think of these countries, it's simply not presidential behavior - note, I'm not even going to debate the racist aspect of it, I'm deliberately omitting it, others have covered it well.

However, Trump's use of cult of personality makes something that *should* be a no brainer become yet another battlefield of contrasting opinions, driving further division between his supporters and his haters. America does not need a leader who drives polarization, they need a leader that will unite them, especially if this has been building for years, as you say. I think it's very reasonable, as well as patriotic, to be frustrated and angry about the impact he is having in this regard, irrespective of what side you're on.

Back to you...
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,901
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Ok, I'll accept your analysis of how the division began and progressed...it rather coincides with the acceleration of the furthering of social issues by the left during those years, and the increased pressure the left put on resolving them. A big difference between the left and the right has always been pace, and so I can see how this division grew in direct correlation to the further of social issues, and the resulting pushback.

But I believe Trump was different in the fact that he weaponized the division, or at minimum harnessed it to secure his win. He did not shy away from creating more, rather he put the pedal to the metal, increasingly as the response from the GOP base showered him with approval. This represents a new response to the division that was brewing among the citizenry...again, I'm open to being corrected, but I don't think any presidential candidate approached an election quite like Trump did, with sewing division being a key component of his (or his handlers') strategy to win. By the way, I hated HRC's "deplorable" designation, too, for the same reason. It was an ugly, ugly election.

The "****hole" comment, if it happened, is rather insignificant to me, to be honest... I mean, it's utterly gross, but gross is what I've come to expect. I can't think any lower of the guy, so new infractions are rather meaningless...the worst is the worst, regardless to what you add to it. But, the tastelessness of it coming from the President of the United States of America, is staggering to most folks. It's in the same league as the Queen of England being featured in a bukake film (exaggerating, of course, but hopefully you get the gist of what I'm saying). Regardless of what you or I may think of these countries, it's simply not presidential behavior - note, I'm not even going to debate the racist aspect of it, I'm deliberately omitting it, others have covered it well.

However, Trump's use of cult of personality makes something that *should* be a no brainer become yet another battlefield of contrasting opinions, driving further division between his supporters and his haters. America does not need a leader who drives polarization, they need a leader that will unite them, especially if this has been building for years, as you say. I think it's very reasonable, as well as patriotic, to be frustrated and angry about the impact he is having in this regard, irrespective of what side you're on.

Back to you...



Let me ask you. Was it trump and trump alone who accelerated it or was it a media chomping at the bit to attack the next republican as they did bush II who when trump rose up to them and matched them in thier fervor both caused the increase rise in hostility between not only the media but the left and the right?


Then you have what started under obama where everyone who disagreed with him was a raging racist continued under trump. for example. Is haiti a desirable place to live or is it a less than desirable place to live? If it's the latter, if I call it a "****hole" is that racist? What makes it racist? See these leaps your side makes doesn;t help you. it makes people role thier eyes.

Like when shiela lee jackson bumped a first class passenger she immediately cried racism that the woman bumped dared complained, turns out the lady she bumped turned out to be a human rights activist and a democrat. Hear me on this tangent, you have people on the left making constant false charges of racism, you have a media caught in lie after lie on **** like this that trump really could be satan hitler of the SS in charge of a fascist takeover of the US, but no one would know due to the fake reporting and the zeal to call people racist. do you not see this?
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,552
Reaction score
28,275
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Jay Cost at National Review argues that in fewer than 70 years, we have developed a “pervasive sense of presidential omnipotence and omniscience,” the notion that a President is all-powerful and everywhere, and that this may be driving us all crazy. In a republic, centering government power around one person and making that person a celebrity superstar is not very republican, he says, and adds:

The fact that any president could rile up the nation as Trump has is an illustration of how overgrown the executive power has become. The notion of “coequal branches” is a 20th-century invention. For most of the nation’s history prior to the Great Depression, the president played second fiddle to Congress. This was by constitutional design. The Framers envisioned the legislature, not the president, as the fount of republican authority, and they designed a government accordingly.

Cost observes that when Teddy Roosevelt reinvigorated the Presidency, his opponents mocked him for it, and he blames “Progressive Democrats” assuming power under Wilson and certainly under FDR for “giving the president a leadership role that he had only occasionally possessed before.”

He also notes that FDR’s admin was the first to exploit mass-communications technology. With successive admins, “Presidential exposure has scaled up accordingly.” His opinion:

I think one reason for these bipartisan manifestations of presidential derangement syndrome is the mythological foundation of the modern presidency. A core operating assumption of the office is that one human being can possibly speak for the national interest generally understood. That is fanciful. At most, the president will always express a particular view of the national interest, thereby creating the potential for cognitive dissonance in a sizable minority of the country. Because he is now able to speak to us so often, this mental discomfort can be nearly constant for his opponents. And because he is now so powerful, he also makes it seem to them that he is ruining the country. Trump & Obama Derangement Syndrome Rooted in Myth of President as King | National Review

I’m with the author: I too hope that the “lemonade” here is that perhaps the Trump administration is exposing institutional flaws that will lead to the scaling back of the Executive and the reformation and restoration of the Congress.
First, thank you for this article. It is indeed thought provoking.

Second, the 20th century evolution of the presidency was largely due to several events which were beyond Congress - and that would be both world wars and the Great Depression as well as the Cold War which followed. The build up of executive power was inevitable given the events of the 20th century.

Third, I would disagree with you final observation about Trump leading to a scaling back of the Executive. We tried a little bit of that after the Nixon debacle and its till plagues us today. Get rid of the real problem - a mentally deluded unqualified buffoon in the White House wearing the halloween costume of a president who has a dangerous case of extreme narcissism and a tendency towards authoritarianism and lots of these problems will be gone with the wind.
 

nota bene

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
58,482
Reaction score
32,162
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
There are many of generation that lived through the Great Depression and WWII that feel the same as to FDR.
I may be mistaken, but I think all four of my grandparents regarded him as a "savior."
 

nota bene

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
58,482
Reaction score
32,162
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Great post Nota Bene, but too many people have rejected the constitutional process intellectually, emotionally, philosophically. They want a king. A king who will make things right. A king who will establish a government that creates utopia as they envision it. A king who will punish or vanquish the people they hate and embrace themselves as the privileged class. And that makes the executive larger than life and far more important than anything the founders intended.

Those of us who still respect and revere constitutional principles want:

--The executive to perform the responsibilities assigned to that office by the Constitution. He should have no power to alter, change, dismiss, or refuse to enforce the laws passed by the people's representatives. He certainly is given no constitutional authority to make executive orders that have the force of law.

--All laws, rules, regulations of all kinds--those that have the force of law--at the federal level should be considered, debated, and voted by the people's elected representatives according to the process specified in the Constitution. No law, rule, or regulation should ever be passed and signed into law by the President without citing the specific constitutional authority that justifies it. A congressperson's or senator's vote should be clear that the person voting has read the legislation in its entirety and he/she is approving it.

--Those appointed or hired as government employees or aides should implement the laws passed by the people's elected representatives, period. Unelected faceless bureaucrats have no constitutional authority to make rules and regulations that have the force of law, and yet we have allowed such people to make thousands upon thousands of such rules and regulations constituting hundreds of thousands of pages in the national register that have the force of law. There are so many with so many overlaps and contradictions that it is probable that every U.S. corporation is committing at least one felony every single day and perhaps each and every one of us too. That gives government power that it was never intended to have.

--The purpose of the courts is to settle disputes or questions of the intent and application of the law. The Constitution gives the courts no authority of any kind to change the law or make their own rulings that then have the force of law.

But all that is out the window when you have a king. A king that is either revered or worshiped as the people's savior, or is reviled and hated because he is not of the proper 'royal' (political) blood. And depending on the role the people assign to him, he gets all the credit for anything good and any who oppose him get all the blame for anything bad. Or if he is from the wrong 'royal line' he will be blamed for anything bad and any who oppose or thwart him will be praised as virtuous and honorable. (And their posts are liked a lot on message boards.)

With an education system and MSM who mostly promote the king concept and no longer teach Constitution as it was intended if they teach it at all, I don't know that we can reverse this. I have long believed that we are the last generation who will be able to turn it around, and I fear we may have already passed the tipping point.
Thank you for a very good summary of what those who respect the Constitution want. I hope it's not too late. I think the way you explained "king" is also very good, but I think you should add back "laziness" to many of those who want a monarch. They've relinquished their own obligation to be informed and aware. I never cease to be surprised by the number of people I meet who have no idea at all what's going on, not here and not in the world. They just don't care. And maybe they don't really mind at all just accepting whatever comes along or simply doing as they're told because this makes their lives easier?
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,785
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I have always believe that up to the TR administration, the government was pretty much in check and operating mostly constitutionally--there were occasional veers off the straight and narrow but for the most part, those elected to high office maintained constitutional principles. It was the Teddy Roosevelt that turned things on their head. He was the first to reject the concept that elected officials can do only what they are authorized to do by the Constitution. He pushed a concept that elected officials can do anything that isn't specifically forbidden by the Constitution. And he, like FDR, packed the court system with judges who would not interfere with that concept. He was the first 'king' in what would become pretty much an unbroken line of them, each assuming more personal power as time passed.

That is what started the snowball rolling. Slowly and unobtrusively at first on a very gentle incline. But subsequent Presidents did nothing to reverse that interpretation and it got a huge shove in the FDR administration. Ever since then it is been picking up mass and velocity until it has become the massive, unmanageable, unknowable, and uncontrollable entity that the U.S. government is today.

I honestly think President Trump was elected as our last best chance to smash it to smithereens or at least fragment it so that we could begin reclaiming our constitutional protections and a government by the people. I still believe, perhaps without putting it into the words I would use, that he has the same instincts. But he likely won't be allowed to accomplish as much as we who voted for him had hoped.
Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

:agree: and well said! I suppose it's human nature for anyone who has reached the level of POTUS to not only want to keep the "perks" of the job that are already there, but to add to them as part of what they hoped would be remembered by historians as part of their "legacy."

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights adequately spells out all the requirements necessary for the public's protection and well-being, which is why they were written in the first place, IMO, and while I might not always agree with those that choose to interpret things differently - the fact remains that the same "public" are the ones who are expected to provide, via our taxes, all the money necessary to pay the bills, including the generous salaries of all the Senators, Representatives in the House, Supreme Court Justices, and White House personnel, plus salaries for all their Staff, among other items. :roll:

With our debt at nearly $21 trillion dollars and still climbing, it looks like we're approaching the point of being unable to afford ourselves, while other countries' immigrants expect us to take care of them too? Good luck with that..... :doh:
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
24,615
Reaction score
17,798
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Jay Cost at National Review argues that in fewer than 70 years, we have developed a “pervasive sense of presidential omnipotence and omniscience,” the notion that a President is all-powerful and everywhere, and that this may be driving us all crazy. In a republic, centering government power around one person and making that person a celebrity superstar is not very republican, he says, and adds:

The fact that any president could rile up the nation as Trump has is an illustration of how overgrown the executive power has become. The notion of “coequal branches” is a 20th-century invention. For most of the nation’s history prior to the Great Depression, the president played second fiddle to Congress. This was by constitutional design. The Framers envisioned the legislature, not the president, as the fount of republican authority, and they designed a government accordingly.

Cost observes that when Teddy Roosevelt reinvigorated the Presidency, his opponents mocked him for it, and he blames “Progressive Democrats” assuming power under Wilson and certainly under FDR for “giving the president a leadership role that he had only occasionally possessed before.”

He also notes that FDR’s admin was the first to exploit mass-communications technology. With successive admins, “Presidential exposure has scaled up accordingly.” His opinion:

I think one reason for these bipartisan manifestations of presidential derangement syndrome is the mythological foundation of the modern presidency. A core operating assumption of the office is that one human being can possibly speak for the national interest generally understood. That is fanciful. At most, the president will always express a particular view of the national interest, thereby creating the potential for cognitive dissonance in a sizable minority of the country. Because he is now able to speak to us so often, this mental discomfort can be nearly constant for his opponents. And because he is now so powerful, he also makes it seem to them that he is ruining the country. Trump & Obama Derangement Syndrome Rooted in Myth of President as King | National Review

I’m with the author: I too hope that the “lemonade” here is that perhaps the Trump administration is exposing institutional flaws that will lead to the scaling back of the Executive and the reformation and restoration of the Congress.
Congress has ceded on its own many powers to the presidency. You add to those the powers congress has ceded to other agencies within the government, you end up with a less than co-equal branch of government. Congress can still be a pain in the butt, but only if the majority party in congress isn’t of the same party of the president. Add to that that today the members of congress of the same party of the Administration or of the president are more a part of that administration than of the institution of congress. They try to give the president everything he wants and wishes for. It’s like those members of congress of the president’s party are working for the president and not the people who elected them or whom they are supposed to represent.

A lot of congress’s problems is basically a weak Speaker and a political party mentality. I’m old enough to remember when Sam Rayburn was Speaker of the House. If the president tried to infringe upon the powers of congress, old Sam wouldn’t have it. It didn’t matter if the president was of Sam’s party or not. By god and the constitution, Sam would fight ceding any powers to the administration. Sam wouldn’t stand for the phone and a pen, he’d make the president go through congress as the constitution provides. Mike McCormick pretty much followed suit along with Carl Albert. But they were no Sam Rayburn. After them, ceding power and giving the president everything possible became the norm.

Congress could still exert itself, but the odds on that are astronomical. Those of the president’s party are too busy playing footsie for the president. Yes, treating the president as a king being the king’s/president’s knights.
 

nota bene

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
58,482
Reaction score
32,162
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Congress has ceded on its own many powers to the presidency. You add to those the powers congress has ceded to other agencies within the government, you end up with a less than co-equal branch of government. Congress can still be a pain in the butt, but only if the majority party in congress isn’t of the same party of the president. Add to that that today the members of congress of the same party of the Administration or of the president are more a part of that administration than of the institution of congress. They try to give the president everything he wants and wishes for. It’s like those members of congress of the president’s party are working for the president and not the people who elected them or whom they are supposed to represent.

A lot of congress’s problems is basically a weak Speaker and a political party mentality. I’m old enough to remember when Sam Rayburn was Speaker of the House. If the president tried to infringe upon the powers of congress, old Sam wouldn’t have it. It didn’t matter if the president was of Sam’s party or not. By god and the constitution, Sam would fight ceding any powers to the administration. Sam wouldn’t stand for the phone and a pen, he’d make the president go through congress as the constitution provides. Mike McCormick pretty much followed suit along with Carl Albert. But they were no Sam Rayburn. After them, ceding power and giving the president everything possible became the norm.

Congress could still exert itself, but the odds on that are astronomical. Those of the president’s party are too busy playing footsie for the president. Yes, treating the president as a king being the king’s/president’s knights.
As usual, I think you've nailed it. Yes, a strong, independent Speaker protective of Congressional power might be the medicine for what ails Congress.

 
Top Bottom