4 ms·

What we have now isn't separation of power, it's immense power of the office of the president. The president should be a check on Congress (which he is), but Co

What we have now isn't separation of power, it's immense power of the office of the president. The president should be a check on Congress (which he is), but Congress should also be a check on the president (they're not, effectively, because they have handed over so much power to him). The same power that made Obama good to progressives will make Trump very, very bad to them.

throwaway4job 10y ago
I strongly believe that Obama was net good in large part because there was so much opposition to him. As such he couldn't ram-rod a one-sided version of anything through. Similarly, I feel that Bush's and Clinton's best years were the periods where they had opposition, and couldn't use party allegiance to push things through. I've felt that one-sided rule is net-negative essentially every time it's happened in my adult life, regardless of party. Trump will just be an especially hard to ignore version of this anti-pattern, as he's made clear that he'll punish non-conformity within the GOP; and the GOP has made clear that they will do anything he requests, even when it stands against every major conservative principle.
nostrademons 10y ago
I'd argue that they are a check on the President. Wasn't the main objection to Obama that he didn't actually accomplish much of the "Change" he promised during his presidency? Most of that is because he had an opposition Congress that obstructed every major policy change. Much of the rest is because the President doesn't actually have the power most people think he does - he is largely powerless to positively influence the economy, for example, and he's completely unable to predict or control technological breakthroughs that may throw millions of people out of work.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  Where is the line between "Check to prevent abuse" and "Roadblock that stops any meaningful change"?
  - mseebach 10y ago
    Congress legislates, president implements. The president isn't where "meaningful change" should come from. Hence 'king-complex'.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      And Congress frequently legislates to delegate - entirely in accordance with the Constitution, which is why article II section 2.1 contemplate the President 'requir[ing] the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective Offices.' Clearly, the framers contemplated the existence of Departments within the executive branch, whose Officers held Opinions about things within their purview, as opposed to being mindless robots. A great deal of legislation sets the scope and limits of such departmental authority, while directing the departments to engage in a more detailed rulemaking process of their own as opposed to everything being micromanaged by Congress. You keep making normative statements that describe your personal political views, but I can't help noticing that you're not citing any provisions in the Constitution to back up your argument. I'm thus unsure whether you are talking about your view of the Constitution's meaning or some other scheme of governance with which you'd like to replace the existing one.
  - nostrademons 10y ago
    They are two sides of the same coin - the only difference is which side you're standing on. Same way that the patriots who started the American Revolution would've been labeled terrorists had they failed. From the POV of the government itself though, the primary imperative - stronger than one policy prescription - is continued existence. And to ensure continued existence, a government needs to let through change that, if repressed, would bring down the government, while also preventing change so radical and so permanent that it destroys the government on its own.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    When you have large numbers of people claiming to be dead against things that they were previously in favor of, it might be that they're being hypocritical and obstructive. Obvious examples that come to mind are Obamacare (modeled on a plan originated by Mitt romney as governor of Massachusetts), Syria (where the Congress refused to authorize US military action in Syria and then spent the next several years blaming Obama for being soft on ISIS in Syria), Merrick Garland (who everyone agreed to be a great judge until Obama nominated him to the Supreme Court, at which point the Senate abrogated it's Constitutional duty to advice the President by refusing to even hold a hearing for his nominee). Republicans have repeatedly gone on record in public statements about the totality of their opposition to Obama regardless of policy considerations. Allow me to refer you to the paper cited here for some objective demonstration of the increasing polarization of US politics and its acceleration in recent years: http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/04/24/political_partisanship_in_three_stunning_charts_109196.html http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/04/24/poli...
anigbrowl 10y ago
This is nonsensical. I consider Obama to have been a good President because I liked his policy proposals, not because he of his ability to wield executive power (the bulk of which was inherited from his predecessors, by the way). You talk as if Obama ignored Congress, which is simply not the case.

throwaway4job 10y ago

I strongly believe that Obama was net good in large part because there was so much opposition to him. As such he couldn't ram-rod a one-sided version of anything through. Similarly, I feel that Bush's and Clinton's best years were the periods where they had opposition, and couldn't use party allegiance to push things through. I've felt that one-sided rule is net-negative essentially every time it's happened in my adult life, regardless of party. Trump will just be an especially hard to ignore version of this anti-pattern, as he's made clear that he'll punish non-conformity within the GOP; and the GOP has made clear that they will do anything he requests, even when it stands against every major conservative principle.

nostrademons 10y ago

I'd argue that they are a check on the President. Wasn't the main objection to Obama that he didn't actually accomplish much of the "Change" he promised during his presidency? Most of that is because he had an opposition Congress that obstructed every major policy change. Much of the rest is because the President doesn't actually have the power most people think he does - he is largely powerless to positively influence the economy, for example, and he's completely unable to predict or control technological breakthroughs that may throw millions of people out of work.

brianwawok 10y ago
Where is the line between "Check to prevent abuse" and "Roadblock that stops any meaningful change"?
- mseebach 10y ago
  Congress legislates, president implements. The president isn't where "meaningful change" should come from. Hence 'king-complex'.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    And Congress frequently legislates to delegate - entirely in accordance with the Constitution, which is why article II section 2.1 contemplate the President 'requir[ing] the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective Offices.' Clearly, the framers contemplated the existence of Departments within the executive branch, whose Officers held Opinions about things within their purview, as opposed to being mindless robots. A great deal of legislation sets the scope and limits of such departmental authority, while directing the departments to engage in a more detailed rulemaking process of their own as opposed to everything being micromanaged by Congress. You keep making normative statements that describe your personal political views, but I can't help noticing that you're not citing any provisions in the Constitution to back up your argument. I'm thus unsure whether you are talking about your view of the Constitution's meaning or some other scheme of governance with which you'd like to replace the existing one.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  They are two sides of the same coin - the only difference is which side you're standing on. Same way that the patriots who started the American Revolution would've been labeled terrorists had they failed. From the POV of the government itself though, the primary imperative - stronger than one policy prescription - is continued existence. And to ensure continued existence, a government needs to let through change that, if repressed, would bring down the government, while also preventing change so radical and so permanent that it destroys the government on its own.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  When you have large numbers of people claiming to be dead against things that they were previously in favor of, it might be that they're being hypocritical and obstructive. Obvious examples that come to mind are Obamacare (modeled on a plan originated by Mitt romney as governor of Massachusetts), Syria (where the Congress refused to authorize US military action in Syria and then spent the next several years blaming Obama for being soft on ISIS in Syria), Merrick Garland (who everyone agreed to be a great judge until Obama nominated him to the Supreme Court, at which point the Senate abrogated it's Constitutional duty to advice the President by refusing to even hold a hearing for his nominee). Republicans have repeatedly gone on record in public statements about the totality of their opposition to Obama regardless of policy considerations. Allow me to refer you to the paper cited here for some objective demonstration of the increasing polarization of US politics and its acceleration in recent years: http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/04/24/political_partisanship_in_three_stunning_charts_109196.html http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/04/24/poli...

anigbrowl 10y ago

This is nonsensical. I consider Obama to have been a good President because I liked his policy proposals, not because he of his ability to wield executive power (the bulk of which was inherited from his predecessors, by the way). You talk as if Obama ignored Congress, which is simply not the case.