Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasslehofp99
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Right, so aside from appointing supreme court justices (which in itself is not that powerful because history dictates that more times than not Supreme court justices don't always follow party lines) I dont see anything here that suggests the president holds any true power? I mean, nullifying treaties is cool...but if that were to be damaging/against the best interest of the people I doubt it would stick...after all thats what "Checks & Balances" are for right? Or is that just another illusion of American "Democracy" as well? Also -- How can a president start a war without funding from congress?
As far as determining policy direction as you put it goes, the president is a mere icon for whichever political party he represents. The president has no real agenda, other then the one that is given to him by the people who put him into office.
|
Supreme Court appointments are incredibly powerful. Where do you get the concept that Justices jump their philosophical lines more often than they follow them? Of course deviations exist everywhere and large exceptions can be found, but these are exceptions. Had Romney been elected, you very likely would have seen Brett Kavanaugh appointed to the court and Roe overturned within a decade.
Regarding treaties, I notice you bolded the part "with the advice and consent of the Senate." Are you trying to suggest that part is a severe limited power on the president? In practice, the Senate's hands can often be tied in treaty making because the president may alternatively pursue a unilateral executive agreement raising a basketful of headache issues, so the treaty option is instead used.
The term "Checks and Balances" never appears in the constitution. True, the concept does exist within our government, but the three (or four, if you want to get cute and count agencies) branches of our government tend to be supreme within their own spheres. The checks and balances come into play when an action crosses spheres of supremacy. Within his own sphere of power, the President is incredibly powerful.
Executive agencies can make your life a living hell if they want. The President can issue commands and edicts telling those agencies exactly what to do. Yes, the President can go nuts with the following agencies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...es_and_Bureaus
As I said above, the President can unilaterally commit acts of war and there's a very sticky set of issues regarding his actual war powers. Monica Missiles anyone?
Also, there's the whole issue of emergency powers. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. True, your checks and balances can come into play here (See: Truman & Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer or Korematsu and the Internment Camps).
If your arguments is that the President's power is often exercised in consideration of political ramifications, I agree. Much of the power he might otherwise wield is limited by his political concerns. However, the claim "They are just a symbol with no true power." is utterly baseless.
You cannot seriously suggest that the President is an interchangeable entity that has no bearing upon our political direction. To believe that is the height of unawareness or perhaps cynicism. Neither of which is terribly healthy.