Harris the Magnanomous, President of All Americans, will have a Pub in cabinet

Why would a Marxist be thrilled with the idea of creating a virtual king in a capitalist state? I would hope even a capitalist would not find that thrilling? But I think many capitalists sympathize with bosses, and the president is just another kind of boss, and the boss has to get his way, because if he doesnt what is the point of a boss?

 

Yes I think you’ve identified the heart of our disagreement. This is a difference in how much should we value our party’s platform, where we’ve oddly switched roles with me inhabiting the Foucault perspective and you taking the more realist position. I don’t want the parties to have unfettered ability to enact their agendas, because I don’t believe that any viewpoint is objectively superior to its rivals. I don’t really care about who wins the democrat vs republican battle as much as I am interested in the state of the nation. If either party finally realizes its dream to break the shackles of the constitution, I believe that our nation will be effectively finished. I agree with you that both parties seem to like the increased power of the executive office, but I think our best bet is to have enough constraints on presidential power that no single holder of the office can single handedly do much damage.

 

Your talk about freedom and bloodshed is amusing. But you're voting for a guy who enacted a criminal conspiracy to overturn an election. About whom a Lieutenant General who served with him said broke his oath to serve the Constitution. You've essentially voided your own opinions of any credibility. So take a seat, Chicom.

Oh. It had nothing to do with that.....enslavement of other human beings thing?

Is there a "Caricature of Oneself" award this site gives out which you are going for?

MAGA, bro!!

 

We seem to be talking past one another...

Again, the office of the POTUS has been gutted. Far less akin to a "King" than ever b4. Besides that, Beijing controlling it (along with DNC, MSM, academia, welding extraordinary influence through 'big tech', Hollywood, etc,) seems to be a monster coup by your homies in Beijing.

We're still capitalist, but only until our magic currency crashes (which Beijing seems to be prompting by pulling its strings, and having us choke oursel es out by 6 into ruin...) and they seem well poised to control the ensuing chaos by those same levers, when that day arrives.

Your wettest dream.

Why hide your glee?

 

Well in our system, the constraints on presidential power are the ones imposed by bodies that are easily subject to partisan manipulation, whether its congress, the courts or whatever agencies administer law. This is why presidential systems have largely failed wherever they have been tried, all the checks and balances rely on some abstract idea of a virtuous citizenry to function properly. From what I can tell, the argument people are making are the system is great, we just need people to ignore all the incentives laid out by it, and the massive stakes of even filling a random federal court vacancy. So to go back to my 'goobers' comment, it seems appointing a Republican to the cabinet is a token gesture for those people who want to imagine this virtuous citizenry is in power, because that is their idea of virtue.

 

What the hell is this 'increased power of the presidency' y'all are talking about?

Remember a fella by the name of Doh! Biden? Used to be POTUS? Wouldn't cha know the drooling ol fool, still is???

Dude became POTUS by ghost campaigning from a basement (Beijing did most of the work for him), then he was unceremoniously discarded as candy for a 2nd term, as his replacement--and hers--were apppinted/selected without any of that pesky democracy stuff...

But I digess...

Your POTUS today.

Does he really strike you as comparatively empowered vis a vis his predecessors?

If so, please tell me how.

Bc I dsmn sure ain't seeing it.

 

This is just a ridiculous fantasy. The presidency is more powerful than ever, and if you think Beijing is pulling the strings, you really cant be talked to as a serious person, sorry. That's some real Bircher shit man!

 

Ok, so setting aside my claims about Beijing for the moment, answer the question--how, and in what ways, do you figure the office of POTUS has increased in power?

All you're doing is avoiding the issue, and expecting your premise to stand, but your premise is bogus (especially as our CURRENT SITTING POTUS hides, cowering away in the shadows, after having purportedly, *heroically* (LMAO!) voluntarily (LMAO!!), stepped aside, and declined to seek another term--of course, with nothing at all to do with Beijing (LMAO!!!)).

 

I mean, the most obvious one is in making war and setting foreign policy. And we are talking about the office itself, not the person inhabiting it.

 

Presidential power has gained steadily for at least the last 50 years, and is vastly more than in the original Constitution. Power and the Presidency, From Kennedy to Obama | Smithsonian

 

Liz Cheney comes to mind, perhaps

 

Liz Cheney - Homeland Security

 

It may be that some framers were counting on virtue as a guardrail against despotism, but surely Madison wasn’t one of them. As he wrote, ambition must be made to counter ambition. I think this is still our best bet for a sustainable democracy. The republicans should have to come through at least some democrats in order to enact large changes.

Now no one is required to consult advisors with different worldviews. You’re probably right that Harris is somewhat doing this for the optics, but this is surely what I would do if I were elected president. And not as any act of grace toward another party; just to do my best not to screw something up.

 

I am mostly thinking about the number of executive orders that are signed today, which I believe shows a distinctly positive trend over the past five or so presidents. The original intention was clearly for the legislative branch to be the one that creates legislation.

 

The US hasn't declared war since WW II. Not v. North Korea, not v. North Viet Nam, not v. USSR at any point during the Cold War, not v. Iraq in '91, not v. Iraq in '03, not v. Afghanistan in '03.... All actions were essentially executive actions, with de facto backing from congress bc...congress controls the purse strings (and could either support the POTUS, or pull the plug, by not funding--kinda like congress putting the support for Ukraine on hold, while POTUS had to come hat in hand to negotiate re-opening the funding...). In fact, US engagements v. France (circa 1800), the Indian wars, v. the Barbary pirates x2 in the early 19th century ("...to the shores of Tripoli...") were done essentially via executive axn.

Try again.

 

Executive orders have been around for a long time. Generally, they are intended for the President to "regulate" the agencies of the Executive Branch.

Obama got sick of the dysfunction of congress and started doing what he could via Executive Order. For the most part, I believe his EO's stood up pretty well to review.

Trump on the other hand started using EO's to do what ever he wanted. Many of his EO's did not stand up to review.

Biden came in with a flurry of EO's, many of which were to undo Trump's EOs, and to have the various agencies go through what the previous administration had done and look for things what were done in an unlawful manner.

Since that flurry, I'm not sure I've seen a lot of EO's from Biden, but I haven't really been paying attention.

 

She would fit nicely, so would John Kasich or Romney. There are several bright and qualified GOP that haven't taken the MAGA pill.

 

I think a republican senator in a state with a Democratic governor is the best choice.

 

Not sure a senator gives up a slot for that

 

Jill Stein as head of the EPA. Boom!