Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
3. There was a lot of talk about that in the 1700's, and after the failure of...
Fri Dec 14, 2018, 09:48 AM
Dec 2018

the Articles of Confederation. And one of the main reasons for failure was the lack of a powerful national leader.

So, when they wrote the Constitution, they gave us a President with what they thought was appropriate powers. They also unified the head of state and head of government functions. (Britain has the Queen as head of state, the Prime minister as head of government)

As the nation grew, it turned out that the president could amass more power than a divided congress often could. Andrew Jackson pretty much ran roughshod over Congress and showed everyone how to do it.

Impeachment was intended to be difficult so the president wouldn't be tossed out over some temporary disagreement, and giving the power to enact laws to congress was supposed to reduce presidential power.

It's not perfect, but is there another solution?

I'd back the idea. rgbecker Dec 2018 #1
Well, it is a thought katmondoo Dec 2018 #2
There was a lot of talk about that in the 1700's, and after the failure of... TreasonousBastard Dec 2018 #3
Geez genxlib Dec 2018 #4
One doubts this conversation would garner much traction Codeine Dec 2018 #5
Sure, sarisataka Dec 2018 #6
Provocative post title, but not what you are advocating. MarvinGardens Dec 2018 #7
Sigh. Squinch Dec 2018 #8
Two presidents, one for them and one for us. VOX Dec 2018 #9
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Abolish the Office of the...»Reply #3