3 ms·

> Yes, but there's much less support for Executives acting alone. The whole point of having an executive is for a single person to act alone and decisively, es

> Yes, but there's much less support for Executives acting alone. The whole point of having an executive is for a single person to act alone and decisively, especially in times of crisis. In the midst of an emergency is not the time for legislative subcommittees to endlessly debate.

WillPostForFood 6y ago
The process in Wisconsin isn't endless debate - just submit the rile to the legislative committee, and they have the power to negate it. It is affirmed by default.
cryptonector 6y ago
Actually, no. That would be a dictator. In American constitutional law the Executive has rather limited powers.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > the Executive has rather limited powers The US president has the power to unilaterally order a nuclear strike on any point on the planet at any time they choose, regardless of how anyone in the other branches feel about it at the time. So 'limited,' maybe, but also able to end life on Earth as we know it on a whim. That's an aside, however. I'm talking about the general concept of an executive office, not specifically the US president. And sure, there can be limits, but the whole point of an executive is to avoid endless deliberation in the appropriate situations. Perfect example: Congress had the constitutional power to manage tariffs, and they surrendered that power to the president willingly because they weren't able to be decisive enough with it.
  - cryptonector 6y ago
    > The US president has the power to unilaterally order a nuclear strike on any point on the planet at any time they choose, ... Not likely. The U.S. armed forces would not carry out such an order. The President has a lot of military and foreign policy power, but not a lot of domestic policy power. This thread is about domestic policy.
dntbnmpls 6y ago
> The whole point of having an executive is for a single person to act alone and decisively, especially in times of crisis. Within the confines of the powers granted to the executive by law. The legislative branch grants such powers to the executive to act. Where th executive goes beyond that, the judicial branch rules against the executive branch. Checks and balances. > In the midst of an emergency is not the time for legislative subcommittees to endlessly debate. Man I hope Trump doesn't read this and get ideas. You are essentially saying that the executive branch should be given dictatorial powers now. Do away with checks and balances? Is that what you really want? Historically emergencies and crises have been used to justify tyranny and it's scary to see how the fearful yearn for it.

WillPostForFood 6y ago

The process in Wisconsin isn't endless debate - just submit the rile to the legislative committee, and they have the power to negate it. It is affirmed by default.

cryptonector 6y ago

Actually, no. That would be a dictator. In American constitutional law the Executive has rather limited powers.

mullingitover 6y ago
> the Executive has rather limited powers The US president has the power to unilaterally order a nuclear strike on any point on the planet at any time they choose, regardless of how anyone in the other branches feel about it at the time. So 'limited,' maybe, but also able to end life on Earth as we know it on a whim. That's an aside, however. I'm talking about the general concept of an executive office, not specifically the US president. And sure, there can be limits, but the whole point of an executive is to avoid endless deliberation in the appropriate situations. Perfect example: Congress had the constitutional power to manage tariffs, and they surrendered that power to the president willingly because they weren't able to be decisive enough with it.
- cryptonector 6y ago
  > The US president has the power to unilaterally order a nuclear strike on any point on the planet at any time they choose, ... Not likely. The U.S. armed forces would not carry out such an order. The President has a lot of military and foreign policy power, but not a lot of domestic policy power. This thread is about domestic policy.

dntbnmpls 6y ago

> The whole point of having an executive is for a single person to act alone and decisively, especially in times of crisis. Within the confines of the powers granted to the executive by law. The legislative branch grants such powers to the executive to act. Where th executive goes beyond that, the judicial branch rules against the executive branch. Checks and balances. > In the midst of an emergency is not the time for legislative subcommittees to endlessly debate. Man I hope Trump doesn't read this and get ideas. You are essentially saying that the executive branch should be given dictatorial powers now. Do away with checks and balances? Is that what you really want? Historically emergencies and crises have been used to justify tyranny and it's scary to see how the fearful yearn for it.