Indeed, I should imagine all si 39 signaturees of the constitution would belie they had created an executive article II.
There was great debate on how an executive needed to function or if it should be separate from the legislature. The checks were mostly to present executive overreach but it did give the executive a limited number of "powers" like veto, but that was given in case a bill passed from the Congress might be insufficiently supported, and if it were sufficiently supported they could override the veto. The veto was as much a check on the legislature as on the executive, although where the pocket veto came from, I'm not aware I haven't come across any discussion of it from any of the attendees notes or letters.
My own opinion is generally considered perverted, but I would prefer an executive who only executed laws and had no authority of initiation except in times of emergency which Congress could then approve or set aside when it was able to meet.
That smacks of parliamentarianism to most Americans, and of course, that frequently leads to a leader of the Parliament being able to act as an execuitive which can be dangerous in itself.
But I liken it more to our local government where the mayor is not above the city council but a member of the city council.So one can not term limit from the council and then run to become mayor. The council then hires a city manager to manage the affairs. That type of president was one of the considerations that the original conventioneers discussed to great length.
The problem of authority always will create tensions and power grab (I.e. English civil war that emerged into a more tyrannical government than the king had been seen to be).
Any type of executive however or probably any type of "official" who wants to lead is probably a bad choice to lead, and a qualification I would like to see initiated to have any authority that anyone who wants to rule should be eliminated from leading by their desire to lead.
And rather than voting for representatives I would like to see people select from amongst themselves, someone who they feel already does or has represented them.
But such an idea, as I mentioned has created a controversy when I mentioned it=t in the past, a sacrilegious paganism to American to even suggest that voting was not the only manner to have democracy.
But then I suppose Madison was as sacrilegious as well because he observed that rule by majority was about as tyrannical a manner of developing a govt. as could be conceived of and his idea of factions rather than districts selecting representatives still attracts me.
To each their own...From Jackson to Lincoln... and onwards the president has evolved to become above the law...
It did not "just" happen with the election. It has been an evolution those 39 men were all concerned could possibly occur and they tried to design a system where it couldn't, but nevertheless did.
By focusing on PERSONALITIES, - like Trump & Schiff, you're making people think that the REAL problem is Dems, in the minds of Repubs, and Repubs in Dems minds..... But the real threat is Globalist Technocracy & Transhumanism.... America hasn't had "rule of law" for at least decades. We have Rule By Lawyers.... The question now is how long will the facade, and charade, last?....
"Trump can be running strong in the race for worst president ever; and elites can also do deeply illegal things to help make him fail."
Yea, verily. Trumpers might well point to the russiagate conspiracy theory and how it was used against Trump as their motivation for why they need to seize power by any means necessary.
Not sure about the last part, Feral. The longtime hard-right project — goes back to Nixon at least, or maybe to rich opposition to FDR — is already motivation. But yes, yea verily indeed.
Indeed, I should imagine all si 39 signaturees of the constitution would belie they had created an executive article II.
There was great debate on how an executive needed to function or if it should be separate from the legislature. The checks were mostly to present executive overreach but it did give the executive a limited number of "powers" like veto, but that was given in case a bill passed from the Congress might be insufficiently supported, and if it were sufficiently supported they could override the veto. The veto was as much a check on the legislature as on the executive, although where the pocket veto came from, I'm not aware I haven't come across any discussion of it from any of the attendees notes or letters.
My own opinion is generally considered perverted, but I would prefer an executive who only executed laws and had no authority of initiation except in times of emergency which Congress could then approve or set aside when it was able to meet.
That smacks of parliamentarianism to most Americans, and of course, that frequently leads to a leader of the Parliament being able to act as an execuitive which can be dangerous in itself.
But I liken it more to our local government where the mayor is not above the city council but a member of the city council.So one can not term limit from the council and then run to become mayor. The council then hires a city manager to manage the affairs. That type of president was one of the considerations that the original conventioneers discussed to great length.
The problem of authority always will create tensions and power grab (I.e. English civil war that emerged into a more tyrannical government than the king had been seen to be).
Any type of executive however or probably any type of "official" who wants to lead is probably a bad choice to lead, and a qualification I would like to see initiated to have any authority that anyone who wants to rule should be eliminated from leading by their desire to lead.
And rather than voting for representatives I would like to see people select from amongst themselves, someone who they feel already does or has represented them.
But such an idea, as I mentioned has created a controversy when I mentioned it=t in the past, a sacrilegious paganism to American to even suggest that voting was not the only manner to have democracy.
But then I suppose Madison was as sacrilegious as well because he observed that rule by majority was about as tyrannical a manner of developing a govt. as could be conceived of and his idea of factions rather than districts selecting representatives still attracts me.
To each their own...From Jackson to Lincoln... and onwards the president has evolved to become above the law...
It did not "just" happen with the election. It has been an evolution those 39 men were all concerned could possibly occur and they tried to design a system where it couldn't, but nevertheless did.
What is the current catchword? Inevitable.
By focusing on PERSONALITIES, - like Trump & Schiff, you're making people think that the REAL problem is Dems, in the minds of Repubs, and Repubs in Dems minds..... But the real threat is Globalist Technocracy & Transhumanism.... America hasn't had "rule of law" for at least decades. We have Rule By Lawyers.... The question now is how long will the facade, and charade, last?....
"Trump can be running strong in the race for worst president ever; and elites can also do deeply illegal things to help make him fail."
Yea, verily. Trumpers might well point to the russiagate conspiracy theory and how it was used against Trump as their motivation for why they need to seize power by any means necessary.
Not sure about the last part, Feral. The longtime hard-right project — goes back to Nixon at least, or maybe to rich opposition to FDR — is already motivation. But yes, yea verily indeed.
I dunno, russiagate showed that Team D is itself not exactly scrupulous about its use of power.
Agree. Two things can be true...