The Founders debated whether or not we should even have a President.

[kentuck]

They did not believe in any super "leader" in charge of all. They believed all the power was with the people. Somewhere in the course of our history, the "President" has attained powers nowhere defined or intended in the Constitution. Even as Commander in Chief, they said "in times of war". Simply because there needed to be a chain of command that answered to the people.

And now, we have come to this - George W Bush. How in the world could the Congress of these United States surrender so much power to such a small mind and dangerous ego? Perhaps we do need another Constitutional Convention? Perhaps we need to re-define the powers as prescribed by the Founding Fathers? In none of their imaginations could they have envisioned the powers that have been given to this weak excuse for a "leader"..

[The2ndWheel]

1. Good luck trying to change it

Taking out the way they got it for a moment; there is a reason the founding fathers had to come to an entirely different continent to do the whole Constitution thing.

Our entire expanding way of life requires a consolidation of power, no matter what you write on paper.

[Nite Owl]

2. And yet we have judges

confirmed to the Supreme Court who advocate signing statements to give the President virtually unlimited powers to ignor the Congress elected by the people and that Congress flagrantly ignoring their duties to protect the people who have elected them. How far we have come from our founders principles. How very far.

[earthside]

3. The Big Flaw in Our System

I was just thinking about this sort of thing this morning.

The Constitution is a wonderful document, it is a brilliant plan for democratic government.

But the biggest flaw in this plan, as I see it, is that we are stuck with whomever becomes president for four years. Short of the trauma of impeachment, there is not a mechanism by which we can rid ourselves of a leader (such as G.W. Bush) that is so destructive of our national purpose.

One of the advantages of a parliamentary system is that the entire government can be changed by the people pretty much whenever there is a big change in what the people want.

This is why I wish Pelosi and Reid and Dean and Feingold would talk about impeachment, but discuss it in a way that makes the removal of Bush and Cheney less a matter of constitutional crisis and more as a matter of how their departure is necessitated by a need for a new direction ... to salvage our distressed nation.

[bryant69]

4. I think it goes back to war

When we've had times of general peace the Congress has grown more powerful - but the Civil War, and World War II and Vietnam all gave the President increased powers - there were roll backs (Congressional Reconconstruction and Watergate, for example), but I don't know if they ever pushed the power of the President back to what the founders wanted - and now Bush has created a permenant war.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Double T]

5. 'WE' need to reinstate 'checks and balances' and install term limits......

on ALL positions for the executive, representative and JUDICIAL branches of government. It is absurd that 'WE' have politicians with 'lifetime' appointments through elections or by ACTUAL lifetime appointments; THIS can ONLY lead to corruption and abuse of power as 'WE' have experienced with our current politicians. Further, there is overlap of jobs with the NSA, FBI, CIA, DEA, HLS, etc. and many of these agencies could be abolished without reducing security. Signing statements have and will ONLY lead to abuse of power and THIS privilege should be eradicated.

[Bluerthanblue]

6. they also wanted the 'runner up' to be VICE president-

which isn't such a stupid idea.
Especially if the vice president had some actual power- (this administration is an anomoly)
That way the 'will of the people' is more accurately represented.

And screw the electoral college concept, and the 'war powers act'.