Do presidents have way too much power?

[leftyladyfrommo]

Seems that way to me.

One single person should not be able to wreck a country.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

1. After 911...Bush ran amok.

The "Patriot Act" didnt help that 'sitch much either.

[leftyladyfrommo]

2. I just can't believe how one person has been able to do

so much damage.

[unblock]

3. First, he's got enablers; second, he's getting pushback

The problem is not presidential power per se, the problem is that congress is enabling him by refusing to impeach or even properly investigate him. Indeed, they're complicit in protecting him and covering up for him.

Besides, he is not doing nearly the damage that a more powerful president could do because the courts are pushing back and he's not able to get much legislation through.

[leftyladyfrommo]

9. It isn't the legislation.

It is rolling back of all the regulations that protect peiple from big industry pollution, that protect our environment. The messing with the economy . Farmers and businesses spent years getting trade deals set up. He wiped all that out in a matter if days.

It really is not a good thing. The president should have all kinds of checks and balances on him/her.

All it took was a fluke election and a total idiot crook was able to just make a total ness out of things.

[unblock]

13. Not says he's doing no damage at all. Of course he's doing damage

But far less than he could be doing if he were actually competent and non-criminal and worked with congress and within the law.

The good news about many of his executives actions is that they can be reversed quickly too.

[leftyladyfrommo]

15. He us using exactly that argument. That is that

if Dems get back in power they will do away with all the wonderful things he has done very quickly.

[unblock]

17. It sucks that we have to deal with a republican president for 4 years

But at least so far he's been unable to repeal Obamacare, e.g.

McCain's replacement may change that, sadly. If so, we'll need to get 60 seats in the senate to get it back!


Also, the election was not a "fluke". It was stolen. It was a coup.

[tymorial]

10. This.

The branches of government exist to maintain stability and balance. When one or more abdicate their responsibility we end up with exactly the scenario we have now. Instead we have oath to party or oath of office.

[2naSalit]

20. +1

[diva77]

4. No - the problem is that rethugs control the media, Supreme Ct., Congress, Elections officials,

state legislatures, governorships, etc and are enabling the outlaw squatting in the Oval Office. Our checks and balances have been co-opted by rethugs - it's not Dumpy alone. They keep it going with dirty Koch and Mercer money, corporate money, and other unnamed sources of shady money, and self-preserving laws written by dirty organizations such as ALEC.

And many of the rethugs cheated their way into office through the many facets of election fraud. So when you have election fraud installing people in office, the people in office have no need to be accountable to the general population.

[gratuitous]

5. He's being actively assisted by a coterie of people in high positions

Each and every day, every Republican in Congress - House and Senate - gets up and makes an affirmative commitment to keep this shitstorm going. They see the same horrors we see, but unlike us, they're in a position to take direct action against them. They don't. They don't act, they rarely speak out, and if they do speak out, they don't follow up with any meaningful action.

Within months, if not weeks, of Trump's departure from the White House, Republicans will pretend nothing unusual happened, just like they did with the Reign of Error that was George W. Bush's administration. Their pals in the media will pretend along with them, and when anyone brings up the past, they'll pretend that they knew nothing about it, had nothing to do with it, and were powerless to do anything about it. That is, if they're pressed on it, which they won't be. They might make some appropriate cluck-cluck noises, but overall, they will grant themselves complete absolution of any responsibility for the terrible things that are happening. Their supporters, eager for the same absolution, will sign on.

And then it will start all over again, only worse.

[SWBTATTReg]

6. I agree...one person on a personal vendetta shouldn't ever have this kind of power ...

and use it to abuse and misuse powers granted to them (as president). Congress is the same way, w/ one party in power that is obviously scared to take any steps on the positive side to reassert the powers granted it under the constitution. Did this w/ the Obama nomination of Garland and they wouldn't even look at him.

When it's all over and done, there's going to be a lot of work done to ensure that this never happens again.

[handmade34]

7. only when he/she is

not checked as the system supposed would be done

[Goodheart]

8. No, but the Senate does.

In a few years a mere 19% or our population will control over 50% of Senate seats. That would be OK except that the Senate wields so much appointment, approval, investigative, and impeachment power.

[unitedwethrive]

11. The founders assumed that only people of highest quality and integrity

would seek the presidency, be nominated by their party's leaders, and then be elected by the people. If a person who truly puts the welfare of the country first has those powers, I don't think too many would object. The problem is that the constitution does not have adequate safeguards against a corrupt person gaining power. The inevitable outcome of this time in history will certainly will be to diminish presidential powers, for better or worse.

[leftyladyfrommo]

12. Maybe we shouldn't have a president.

Maybe we should have a tribunal of some sort. But wgen everyone is crooked that won't help.

[uponit7771]

14. Yes, if the president is part of an investigation pardoning witness's is too much power

[leftyladyfrommo]

16. one person shouldn't be able to declare war

That is ridiculous.

One person shouldn't be able to nullify trade agreements.

[Iggo]

18. He has help. (n/t)

[Grasswire2]

19. Yes.

It's time to review the powers and not make them so singularly designated to POTUS. We can no longer assume that a president is sane, qualified intellectually, and emotionally prepared to handle that power, or that the Constitutional imperative of the Congressional check on him/her will stand.

[Bettie]

21. If congress is willing to put on the brakes

then no.

Right now? Congress is hand in hand with him, working together to destroy our republic.