The Increasingly Dangerous Presidency

American Thinker.com ^ | August 20, 2020 | Jeremy Egerer

[Kaslin]

Paul Johnson says, in his biography of Washington, that in 1789, the only monarch with powers as wide as the president's was the czar. All the other ones were hemmed in by regulations. Johnson doesn't go too far into detail about it, but why take his word when we can see it right in front of us?

In the last eight years, we found that the president can put grown men into little girls' locker rooms; that he can pay enemy states hundreds of billions in ransom cash; that he can flood our states with millions of Africans and Middle Easterners; that he can make or unmake the border at whim; that he can grant citizenship to illegal aliens; that he can pardon scores of drug-dealers; that he can veto almost every bill; that he can station troops in any town; that he can put off the payment of payroll taxes; that he can effectively bribe the unemployed with hundreds of dollars a week; that (according to Democrats) he should lock the country down and not allow anyone "non-essential" to run a business; that he can bomb people in countries we're not at war with; and that he can spy on the next presidential candidate and walk away unscathed.

Many of these things are done in "an emergency." But who decides what constitutes an emergency? He does. Not like the Romans, whose Senate decided, in extreme cases, that only a dictator could save them. They would get themselves in a pickle and pick somebody to do anything, for a very short time, so they could continue existing. But the president doesn't have anyone to tell him we're in an existential crisis. He is the existential crisis.

[brownsfan]

The job of POTUS is too much for one person. The solution isn’t easy. Any construct involving more than one person is likely become frozen into inaction.

[Buckeye McFrog]

POTUS is increasingly having to rule by dictate because Congress has become totally dysfunctional. Something our Founding Fathers did not foresee. Decisions have to be made and if POTUS is unable to make them, then what?

I agree, there is long term danger in that.

[sauropod]

.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

For instance, create an executive council, elected by the Senate, comprising of three Democrats and three Republicans. No executive order can be given without a "yes" vote from four of them.

In today's political climate that would mean every action taken by a Republican president would be vetoed, and any action taken by a Democrat president would be approved.

[sauropod]

He needs to be able to delegate, with accountability.

That’s why he has a Cabinet.

[ClearCase_guy]

We need both leeway and restriction, and if we plan right, we can have them. For instance, create an executive council, elected by the Senate, comprising of three Democrats and three Republicans. No executive order can be given without a "yes" vote from four of them.

Ridiculous. It would obviously be Democrat policy that none of the 3 Democrats would ever approve a Republican EO. Meanwhile, the 3 Republicans would eagerly reach across the aisle and approve most EOs by a Democrat president.

[dalight]

The problem is not in the Presidency but in the hyperpartisan Congress which ignores the needs of the Country and thus forces each president to operate more and more with a phone and a pen.

But, in the end, this problem is caused by the games of politics itself. Bad faith must be punished and so often attempting the high ground leaves the bad actors rewarded. Game theory is old, its amazing that people continue to play losing games.

[ClearCase_guy]

Best idea would be to amend the Constitution to once again make senators chosen by state legislatures. The Senate should not be a glorified House elected by the mob.

[Islander7]

Where is the PUKE alert in this mess?

[bert]

Donald Trump as President is an existential danger to the Democrat left wing agenda. They were foolish enough to go after him and he will now destroy them to the core.

If he’ll go after and enemy like Good Year, how do the big time coup conspiracy members have a chance?

[grey_whiskers]

The problem is that the Democrats are full Marxist, and most of the GOP are Socialist.

[PIF]

Meanwhile, the 3 Republicans would eagerly reach across the aisle and approve most EOs by a Democrat president.

````
Because to do otherwise would mean the media would not like them and mostly because they would not be invited to all those really swell parties the Democrats put on.

[BwanaNdege]

“The job of POTUS is too much for one person. “

Any job as head of a sufficiently large and/or complex organization, government, military, commercial, educational or church, is too much for one person. That is why you choose leaders who are able to find & evaluate competent, trustworthy assistants and delegate to them.

If you have a potential leader who believes that he IS competent to run the whole show, watch out! The leader needs to be sufficiently cognizant of his areas of responsibility so that he may accurately evaluate the reports and recommendations of his assistants.

Then he will make the final decision. “The Buck stops here.”

[Cboldt]

Would be a smaller problem if we had a government of limited powers.

[The Truth Will Make You Free]

Also get rid of gerrymandering, have term limits on Representatives, no foreign born Reps/Senators, lifetime ban on lobbying, and no special health / retirement plans. That’s a start...

[jospehm20]

Yep.

[Elsie]

The problem is not in the Presidency but in the hyperpartisan Congress VOTERS which ignores the needs of the Country and thus forces each president to operate more and more with a phone and a pen.

[foreverfree]

bump