The Electoral College System

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Good. It certainly is the best of both worlds. It reduces the chances of electing a popular dictator/authoritarian. And, it reduces the chances of a corrupt party clone being elected. Our founding fathers were very big on checks and balances, and the separation of powers. As well as to ensure accountability. Trump pushed these Constitutional controls to their limits.



Not sure what you mean by "extremely limited beyond their primary purpose.". The Executive Branch has given the President more powers today, than was outlined in the Constitution. Thanks to things like the "Patriot Act", "Executive Decisions", being "Commander in Chief", the "Veto Powers", Cabinet and Justices appointment powers, the power of the President is not that limited.

The President can attack any country for the first 90 days, for any reason, before he even needs to consult congress. The President can veto any bill for any reason, preventing it from becoming law. The President can make executive orders(proclamations) to control federal and state governments(and the people indirectly), whenever he wants. The President can end or create treaties with other countries, if he wishes. The President can shut down the government(not all) until the federal budget is balanced. The President is also the Chief Negotiator for the government, and speaks with other leaders directly. And, the President can even pardon criminals if he wants.

Unfortunately, todays presidents have adapted to changes in society. And so have their powers. But this is about the EC system right?
The Patriot Act was enacted by Congress. It may be amended or rescinded by Congress.

"Commander in Chief" refers to the president's command of the military only, not an applicable title outside of military matters.

Congress can override the President's veto.

The War Powers Act of 1973 says that the President may commit U.S. forces to battle for no more than 60 days and up to 30 additional days for withdrawal without congressional approval. However, to do that would require the tacit approval of Congress because right after the section that authorizes those 60 days is this:

(c) Concurrent resolution for removal by President of United States Armed Forces
Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.


So the President may commit those forces to battle for 60 days unless the Congress directs him to withdraw them sooner than that.

Treaties must be approved by the Senate by a two thirds majority.

The President cannot arbitrarily shut down the government if the budget isn't balanced. If he vetoes a spending bill to keep the government running, the Congress can override his veto. It is the responsibility of Congress to authorize the spending of money, not the President. When the Congress fails to pass a spending bill, spending authorization expires.

Cabinet members are confirmed or rejected by the Senate by a majority vote.

The Senate also confirms District Court judges, Court of Appeals judges, and Supreme Court justices.

Of course, the President may exert his influence on all matters, but his actual power is very limited. Again, his primary function is to implement the laws passed by Congress.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
The Patriot Act was enacted by Congress. It may be amended or rescinded by Congress.
Since the US government is not ruled by a dictator, a tyrant, an autocrat, a despot, a monarch, or an oligarch, it is a given that there will be checks and balances to limit the use of the president's power.

It is not the Senate that have the power to make treaties. It is not the Senate that selects, nominate or appoint ambassadors, or federal and supreme court justices/judges. It is not the Senate that have the power to nominate or appoint cabinet heads, or the heads of over 200 other federal commissions. It is not Congress that have the power to turn enacted bills into law. It is not the federal of supreme courts that have the power to create even one executive order.

Since there have been very few exceptions between the president's power, and the control over that power, this point is mute. The president generally will get whatever he wants.

The Patriot act was signed into law by the President(G. W. Bush) in 2001. So the President is also responsible. In fact this act was enacted at the request of the President. I seriously doubt that any country being invaded by the US, would ever see any distinction between 60 days of being bombed and its people killed, and 30 days of US withdrawal. Of course this has never happened, has it? Hence why we are still involved in a number of unsanctioned/undeclared wars/conflicts around the globe. None with the approval of Congress. The American people simply foots the bill. While their elected representatives are too spineless, and too toothless to do anything about it. Not sure what "tacit approval" actually means.

The President cannot arbitrarily shut down the government if the budget isn't balanced. If he vetoes a spending bill to keep the government running, the Congress can override his veto. It is the responsibility of Congress to authorize the spending of money, not the President. When the Congress fails to pass a spending bill, spending authorization expires.
Really? It is traditionally the President who requests this appropriations bill from congress each year. Didn't Trump refuse to sign this spending bill, that would have avoided shutting down the Government? He wanted to force Congress to pass another appropriations bill to finance building his wall. So, it seems that it even if Congress did enact a spending bill, and the President vetoes that bill, it is still Congress's fault for not over-riding the President's veto. Do you really think that that many republicans would vote to over-ride the President's veto? This is not how the system is suppose to work.

I think that most people from all over the world would agree, the the President of the US is the most powerful person on the planet. However, maybe there is some truth in what you say. Any US president that can't get lowly Mexico to pay for a wall, must have extremely very little power in deed.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
.........It is not the Senate that have the power to make treaties. It is not the Senate that selects, nominate or appoint ambassadors, or federal and supreme court justices/judges. It is not the Senate that have the power to nominate or appoint cabinet heads, or the heads of over 200 other federal commissions. It is not Congress that have the power to turn enacted bills into law........

........The Patriot act was signed into law by the President(G. W. Bush) in 2001. So the President is also responsible. In fact this act was enacted at the request of the President.........

.......Really? It is traditionally the President who requests this appropriations bill from congress each year..........


I think that most people from all over the world would agree, the the President of the US is the most powerful person on the planet. However, maybe there is some truth in what you say. Any US president that can't get lowly Mexico to pay for a wall, must have extremely very little power in deed.
It is not the Senate that have the power to make treaties. Correct......BUT the Senate has the power to reject Presidential Treaties......sort of like a 'Congressional Veto', for which a President intent on establishing a particular Treaty, the President can make an "Executive Agreement" on his own, without approval from the Senate.

.....In recent decades, presidents have frequently entered the United States into international agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate. These are called "executive agreements." Though not brought before the Senate for approval, executive agreements are still binding on the parties under international law.
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm

BUT, just like the President, if Congress wanted to ignore/dishonor an "Executive Agreement", Congress could do so by passing 'veto proof' legislation (with enough votes to overcome any veto challenge of the President) to that end, & as long as the law could also pass 'Constitutional Muster' in the SCOTUS (if it ever got to them & they decided to take it up).

It is not the Senate that selects, nominate or appoint ambassadors, or federal and supreme court justices/judges. It is not the Senate that have the power to nominate or appoint cabinet heads, or the heads of over 200 other federal commissions.

Correct, BUT on all occasions that the President nominates to these posts or positions, Congress, due to their powers of 'advice & consent', Congress can refuse such nominations until the President nominates someone that the Congress is willing to confirm.....

The Patriot act was signed into law by the President(G. W. Bush) in 2001. So the President is also responsible. In fact this act was enacted at the request of the President.

Regardless who requested the Patriot Act......being that the President requested it, it is completely immaterial.

ALL LEGISLATION is in Congress's sphere of total control (that's why they are known as the Legislative Branch of Government).....they craft it, modify it, take it up, pass it, or reject it.

The only time the President has any legislative control is in the fact that he can withhold his signature. Then the Congress must override his veto...If the Congress fails to override, that legislation is dead.....it's back to the drawing board.........Now, if the President wants some legislation very bad, he must convince Congress to act favorably on it, & draw it up how he wants it, otherwise, any suggestion the President makes goes nowhere......


It is not Congress that have the power to turn enacted bills into law........

Yes they do have such power, they can enact bills via a "Veto Proof" vote, a vote with high enough support that the legislation could sustain a Presidential Veto.

The President can refuse to sign a bill by 'pocket veto', but in short time...10 days.....as long as Congress is in session, they can override it with two-thirds votes in both Houses making the legislation law.


It is traditionally the President who requests this appropriations bill from congress each year

True, but that was Congress's idea......
The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921


The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 (Pub.L. 67–13, 42 Stat. 20, enacted June 10, 1921) was landmark legislation that established the framework for the modern federal budget. The act was approved by President Warren G. Harding to provide a national budget system and an independent audit of government accounts. The official title of this act is "The General Accounting Act of 1921", but is frequently referred to as "the budget act", or "the Budget and Accounting Act".[1] This act meant that for the first time, the president would be required to submit an annual budget for the entire federal government to Congress.[2]
So, the President, by law, is required to 'suggest' a budget......the key word is 'suggest'.....like all legislation the Congress is not required to pass it....they can amend/re-craft it, ignore it, & make their own, or they can accept it & pass it......All the rules of passing legislation into law regarding the back & forth wrangling with the President apply.....vetoes, etc, etc, etc.
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
It is not the Senate that have the power to make treaties. Correct......BUT the Senate has the power to reject Presidential Treaties......sort of like a 'Congressional Veto', for which a President intent on establishing a particular Treaty, the President can make an "Executive Agreement" on his own, without approval from the Senate.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm

BUT, just like the President, if Congress wanted to ignore/dishonor an "Executive Agreement", Congress could do so by passing 'veto proof' legislation (with enough votes to overcome any veto challenge of the President) to that end, & as long as the law could also pass 'Constitutional Muster' in the SCOTUS (if it ever got to them & they decided to take it up).
I really don't need a civics or a political science lesson, thanks. Firstly, this doesn't change the fact, that the President has the power to make treaties. But lets extend your comments with some context added.

Between 1789 and 1990, there have been over 1,500 treaties approved by the senate. Only 21 were rejected. And 85 were withdrawn because the senate simply ignored them. This still means that over 90% of treaties were approved by the senate.

Also, unlike a formal treaty, an "Executive Agreement" is an informal agreement, that does not carry over to the next administration. There have been over 13,000 execute agreements entered into by presidents over the years. If fact, numerous congressmen have tried to add a new amendment to take away this power by the President. They failed. Once by only one vote.

So, other than this straw man about the senate's power to reject treaties by the President, are you saying that the President does not have the power to make formal treaties? Because that was the only claim I was making.

Correct, BUT on all occasions that the President nominates to these posts or positions, Congress, due to their powers of 'advice & consent', Congress can refuse such nominations until the President nominates someone that the Congress is willing to confirm.....
Again, does the President have the power to select and nominate ambassadors or federal court judges? Since 1789, there have been over 160 nominations made by the Presidents. Only 11 were rejected by the senate. The senate does not nominate or select any of the nominees. It can only confirm, approve, advise, or reject their nomination.

So is it the President who has the power to select and nominate these nominees? Or not?

Regardless who requested the Patriot Act......being that the President requested it, it is completely immaterial.
Seth was implying that it was the congress that was responsible for the Patriot Act. And, not the President. I provided him with an example, that the President has the power to not only sign enacted bills into law, but can also influence legislation into becoming law. So, is the power to sign enacted bills into law another power of the President? Or, not?

Are you also saying that a President with the power to initiate, influence, and sign legislation into law, is immaterial? Is the power of a fascist dictator also immaterial?

So, the President, by law, is required to 'suggest' a budget......the key word is 'suggest'.....like all legislation the Congress is not required to pass it....they can amend/re-craft it, ignore it, & make their own, or they can accept it & pass it......All the rules of passing legislation into law regarding the back & forth wrangling with the President apply.....vetoes, etc, etc, etc.
There are no provisions in the in the Constitution that require the government to balance its budget. The act that you posited, only sets the framework for all federal government agencies to submit their budgets to the President. This has nothing to do with legally forcing all Government departments not to spend more than they receive. To balance its spending over its receipts.

There is no Constitutional requirements. No Federal Laws that mandates the government to become fiscally responsible. Again my point was that the President has the power to shut down the Government(22 times). If these yearly appropriation bills to keep the government open are not signed by the President, then the government shuts down. Is this not another power of the President?

Seth was giving the impression that our founding fathers, wanted to make sure that the President had very little powers. In the list I presented(and you have agreed), clearly show that the President has immense powers. This was my only point. It is because of these check and balance guarantees, that these powers are not absolute. But they are still very much immense.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
........Seth was giving the impression that our founding fathers, wanted to make sure that the President had very little powers. In the list I presented(and you have agreed), clearly show that the President has immense powers. This was my only point. It is because of these check and balance guarantees, that these powers are not absolute. But they are still very much immense.
Not one Presidential Nomination can serve unless approved by Congress, not one Ambassador takes office unless approved by Congress, not one Treaty gets honored, unless approved by Congress, not one Supreme Court Judge unless first approved by Congress, takes his/her seat on the bench, not one major Cabinet position can be filled without the consent of the Congress.....etc, etc, etc........Checks & Balances, hard at work, to ensure the President doesn't get too powerful.

And in our American System of Government, as seen to it by The Founding Fathers, the President's Powers are numerous, BUT because the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that the President's Powers were limited, they laid the framework of "CHECKS & BALANCES"......... at every turn, the President ability to act is carefully 'checked' by the Congress, & the Court, to the limits of the Constitution. As intended by the Founding Fathers, Congress was given the most power, because they are directly accountable to 'WE THE PEOPLE', which brings us full circle back to the topic......to the Electoral College System.....as intended by the Founding Fathers.......a system which makes sure the People do not have direct say in the choosing of the President, & the Rights of the minority to representation is protected in our Constitutional Republic.....not a pure Democracy, where the Majority always rules, & the Rights of the Minority continually suffer.

 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Not one Presidential Nomination can serve unless approved by Congress, not one Ambassador takes office unless approved by Congress, not one Treaty gets honored, unless approved by Congress, not one Supreme Court Judge unless first approved by Congress, takes his/her seat on the bench, not one major Cabinet position can be filled without the consent of the Congress.....etc, etc, etc........Checks & Balances, hard at work, to ensure the President doesn't get too powerful.

And in our American System of Government, as seen to it by The Founding Fathers, the President's Powers are numerous, BUT because the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that the President's Powers were limited, they laid the framework of "CHECKS & BALANCES"......... at every turn, the President ability to act is carefully 'checked' by the Congress, & the Court, to the limits of the Constitution. As intended by the Founding Fathers, Congress was given the most power, because they are directly accountable to 'WE THE PEOPLE', which brings us full circle back to the topic......to the Electoral College System.....as intended by the Founding Fathers.......a system which makes sure the People do not have direct say in the choosing of the President, & the Rights of the minority to representation is protected in our Constitutional Republic.....not a pure Democracy, where the Majority always rules, & the Rights of the Minority continually suffer.
So like Seth, are you saying that the POTUS has "extremely" very little power? That the Executive Branch has "extremely" very little power?

I really do understand that the Constitution, written by the founding fathers, were written to prevent the President from becoming a king/dictator/tyrant. And, that the power of the government was always invested in the people. So copying and pasting more nationalistic political platitudes and sound bites, is really not necessary. And telling me that his powers are not absolute, is also a given.

As I've said in the last post, I am only talking about the power that the POTUS has. And not about the balance of power. So, do the POTUS have the list of powers I've mentioned, or not?

Let's assume that Congress approves of all of the President's nominations and appointments. Let's assume that the courts approve of all of his executive orders. Lets assume that he doesn't veto any enacted bills. Lets assume that congress supports all his wars. And, lets assume that congress supports all of his treaties. So, does the POTUS, and the Executive Branch now have immense power?

In order for the President to have very little power, he would need to be the most incompetent human on the planet. These checks and balances were only intended to protect the people, in case they did elect the most corrupt, incompetent, or despotic ruler on the planet.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
So like Seth, are you saying that the POTUS has "extremely" very little power? That the Executive Branch has "extremely" very little power?

I really do understand that the Constitution, written by the founding fathers, were written to prevent the President from becoming a king/dictator/tyrant. And, that the power of the government was always invested in the people. So copying and pasting more nationalistic political platitudes and sound bites, is really not necessary. And telling me that his powers are not absolute, is also a given.

As I've said in the last post, I am only talking about the power that the POTUS has. And not about the balance of power. So, do the POTUS have the list of powers I've mentioned, or not?

Let's assume that Congress approves of all of the President's nominations and appointments. Let's assume that the courts approve of all of his executive orders. Lets assume that he doesn't veto any enacted bills. Lets assume that congress supports all his wars. And, lets assume that congress supports all of his treaties. So, does the POTUS, and the Executive Branch now have immense power?

In order for the President to have very little power, he would need to be the most incompetent human on the planet. These checks and balances were only intended to protect the people, in case they did elect the most corrupt, incompetent, or despotic ruler on the planet.
Really, the greatest power the President has is the power of his pulpit. He can use it to influence the public and the Congress.

A generally approving Congress can let a President do pretty much what he wants, but a disapproving, politically hostile Congress has the power to prevent a President from doing much of anything. The Congress can override his veto, they can refuse to pass legislation the President wants, they can stop military action, they can stop appointments, and they can impeach him and remove him from office.

The Congress really isn’t constrained by the President. The Congress is constrained by the Supreme Court, because it can decide the constitutionality of the laws it passes. But the President is constrained by both Congress and the Supreme Court.

To contrast, an example of a very strong executive is Putin in Russia. The legislative and judicial branches of the Russian government have virtually no power over him - not in actual practice anyway. Russia serves as a good example as to why we must not cede power to the executive branch in a free country.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Really, the greatest power the President has is the power of his pulpit. He can use it to influence the public and the Congress.

A generally approving Congress can let a President do pretty much what he wants, but a disapproving, politically hostile Congress has the power to prevent a President from doing much of anything. The Congress can override his veto, they can refuse to pass legislation the President wants, they can stop military action, they can stop appointments, and they can impeach him and remove him from office.

The Congress really isn’t constrained by the President. The Congress is constrained by the Supreme Court, because it can decide the constitutionality of the laws it passes. But the President is constrained by both Congress and the Supreme Court.

To contrast, an example of a very strong executive is Putin in Russia. The legislative and judicial branches of the Russian government have virtually no power over him - not in actual practice anyway. Russia serves as a good example as to why we must not cede power to the executive branch in a free country.
What exactly are you talking about? Who is talking about congress being constrained by the President? I don't care about the practices of the Russian government. Why are you talking about the President, as though he is in conflict with the congress or the courts?

I'm explaining why I believe the POTUS has immense power. Can you show me where he does not have the powers that I've listed. I'm not interested in all the measures that safeguard the integrity of the government. I will stipulate that all these measures exist, to prevent an abuse of Presidential powers. But I am not talking about measures that can be taken to prevent an abuse of power. So why are you?
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
What exactly are you talking about? Who is talking about congress being constrained by the President? I don't care about the practices of the Russian government. Why are you talking about the President, as though he is in conflict with the congress or the courts?

I'm explaining why I believe the POTUS has immense power. Can you show me where he does not have the powers that I've listed. I'm not interested in all the measures that safeguard the integrity of the government. I will stipulate that all these measures exist, to prevent an abuse of Presidential powers. But I am not talking about measures that can be taken to prevent an abuse of power. So why are you?
My point is that by design we have a weak presidency, at least as far as his statutory power to act.

How this relates to the EC system is that the center of our politics should be in Congress, not the presidency since the fundamental reason we have an executive branch is to carry out the will of Congress.

As I think I said before, the EC system causes the selection of a President to require the approval of various states, both large and small, from coast to coast. That a president is accountable to this variety of states is a positive aspect of this system in my opinion.

Those who want to end the EC system are, in my opinion, misunderstanding how our government is supposed to work. They are seeking to empower the presidency unwisely. The presidency has enough power as it is. This is America, not Russia.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
My point is that by design we have a weak presidency, at least as far as his statutory power to act.

How this relates to the EC system is that the center of our politics should be in Congress, not the presidency since the fundamental reason we have an executive branch is to carry out the will of Congress.

As I think I said before, the EC system causes the selection of a President to require the approval of various states, both large and small, from coast to coast. That a president is accountable to this variety of states is a positive aspect of this system in my opinion.

Those who want to end the EC system are, in my opinion, misunderstanding how our government is supposed to work. They are seeking to empower the presidency unwisely. The presidency has enough power as it is. This is America, not Russia.
By design, all laws are meant to be fair, just, and equally applied to everyone. Clearly this is not the case. And, "weak" is meaningless without something to compare it to(like "the best").

Look I can see that the more I talk about apples, you will continue to talk about oranges. You will just keep changing the goalposts, no matter what I say. I'm really not interested in political safeguards, accountabilities, checks and balances, separation of powers, or any of these political platitudes and soundbites, designed only to make your heart feel warmer. But in the real world, everyone of these safeguards can easily be exploited or ignored.

How many Presidents have been removed from power?? NONE

You said that the POTUS has extremely very little power. I disagree.

Any President that that can order a drone strike, and kill citizens in another country, does have the power over life and death. Where were these checks and balances then?

Any President that can send an army, to any country, for any reason, and tumble their government, does have immense powers.

Any President that can shutdown the government, and stop paychecks to over 800K government employees, does have immense powers.

Any President that can issue executive orders to ban people from different countries from entering the US, does have immense powers.

Any President who appoints cabinet heads and fed commissions, that make policies that affect every aspect of our lives, does have immense power.

Any President that appoints federal an supreme court justices, that affect every legal aspect of our lives, does have immense powers.

What happens afterwards is after the fact. These power and legacy-mad politicians today have no moral consciousness at all.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
By design, all laws are meant to be fair, just, and equally applied to everyone. Clearly this is not the case. And, "weak" is meaningless without something to compare it to(like "the best").

Look I can see that the more I talk about apples, you will continue to talk about oranges. You will just keep changing the goalposts, no matter what I say. I'm really not interested in political safeguards, accountabilities, checks and balances, separation of powers, or any of these political platitudes and soundbites, designed only to make your heart feel warmer. But in the real world, everyone of these safeguards can easily be exploited or ignored.

How many Presidents have been removed from power?? NONE

You said that the POTUS has extremely very little power. I disagree.

Any President that that can order a drone strike, and kill citizens in another country, does have the power over life and death. Where were these checks and balances then?

Any President that can send an army, to any country, for any reason, and tumble their government, does have immense powers.

Any President that can shutdown the government, and stop paychecks to over 800K government employees, does have immense powers.

Any President that can issue executive orders to ban people from different countries from entering the US, does have immense powers.

Any President who appoints cabinet heads and fed commissions, that make policies that affect every aspect of our lives, does have immense power.

Any President that appoints federal an supreme court justices, that affect every legal aspect of our lives, does have immense powers.

What happens afterwards is after the fact. These power and legacy-mad politicians today have no moral consciousness at all.
How many Presidents have been removed from power?? NONE

Why?.......Pure & Simple....Because a strong enough case was never made that would have convinced enough votes to convict, & subsequently remove. You may disagree, but your personal feelings are immaterial.....the process is what it is......

Any President that can shutdown the government, and stop paychecks to over 800K government employees, does have immense powers.

Congress can override a President's veto to end a standoff, as it can on any proposed legislation, if it strongly disagreed, & pass it's budget over the President's objections/veto to continue making prior, or new, Congressionally authorized payments.

Any President that can issue executive orders to ban people from different countries from entering the US, does have immense powers.

The Supreme Court, as it has done on other occasions, can overrule an Executive Order, if they find legitimate grounds for such a ruling. If the Court does not, the EO will stand.....Then, if it saw fit, the Congress could legislate a Law that makes an order of that nature illegal, & if the Court disagrees on Constitutional grounds, the People could pass a Constitutional Amendment removing that particular power from the President.

Any President who appoints cabinet heads and fed commissions, that make policies that affect every aspect of our lives, does have immense power.

Virtually all appointment 'nominations' requires Congressional Consent, & Congress can withhold it's consent until an acceptable nominee is nominated. AFAIK there is no time limit on how long a 'nomination' process might take....

Any President that appoints federal an supreme court justices, that affect every legal aspect of our lives, does have immense powers.

Again, Congress can withhold it's consent until an acceptable nominee is nominated.

You may not like American Constitutional Law, but until made otherwise, they are the Laws of the Land......
Popular or Not.
..
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
You may not like American Constitutional Law, but until made otherwise, they are the Laws of the Land......
Popular or Not.
..

I actually love the US Constitution. I love it because of what it represents. And, because it is a fluid and dynamic document. And, I certainly know more about the Constitution then you will ever know. IMHO. So stop making such a silly assumption. There are other countries with their own written Constitutions. Having a written Constitution, rather than just statutes, do not guarantee a better Democracy does it? So no one is envious or jealous of a written document. This is just your default defense anytime someone makes a valid criticism about this overly-interpretative document. A document that you, or anyone else today, had absolutely nothing to do with. So you, like most other closet-xenophobes, you are only preaching to a choir of other xenophobes.

Anyone visiting the US will not only see the glitz, glamour, and over the top luxuries. But, will also see the open poverty, the drugs, the homelessness, the social despair, the mentally ill, the crime, and the infrastructural and sanitation(garbage) neglect. It is like being in Bangladesh or Brazil, where adults and children are begging for money and food.

The US alone owes over a third of the entire world's public debt. If not for the 10's of trillions in borrowed wealth, and the wealth acquired at the expense of the poor, and the trillions wasted on the 7th largest military in the world(numbers of personnel), you would be just another large well-armed banana republic. If not for your ability to destroy the entire world, and your ability to peddle good quality fantasies(movies), you wouldn't have any respect at all.


Did you miss the part of how the courts and congress can be exploited? Did you ignore the part where I said the the President's powers were NOT absolute? Aren't you simply saying that it is Congress and the courts that have all these power, and NOT the President? Aren't you just making the courts and congress escape goats for any incompetent President? That is, that no matter what abuse of power the President does, it will always be the fault of the courts and congress for allowing him to do it?

But of course, we are NOT talking about the powers that the President doesn't have, but about the powers that he does have, right? So let me ask you again. Does the POTUS have all the executive powers that I've outlined? Or does the President NOT have these powers? Yes or No?

I, and the rest of the world believe that the POTUS is the most powerful person on the planet. Are we wrong?
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
it should be one man one vote ... the Electoral Collage should go.
America was founded upon some Democratic Principals, but regarding voting for the United States President, the American People only vote for Electors, who in turn, vote for & select the President of the United States.

Each voter does only have one vote, & in this regard, it is for Electors within the Electoral College. This, among other things, makes America a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, something the The American Founding Fathers did not want, & not what they gave to the American People.

The American Founding Fathers did not give America a Democracy, they gave The American People a Republic..... A Constitutional Republic .....where the popular vote does not Rule, but where Law, the United States Constitution, does Rule......protecting the Rights of the American Minority from Mob Rule (a Democracy), via rules & laws written in the United States Constitution....



..
 
Last edited:

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
That would make America a Democracy, something the The American Founding Fathers did not want, & not what they gave the American People.
I don't care what the founding fathers wanted. They were wrong.

For a country that has invaded other countries in the name of pursuing 'democracy', I think it should lead by example and clean it's own house first.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
.....For a country that has invaded other countries in the name of pursuing 'democracy', I think it should lead by example and clean it's own house first.
Pursuing an AMERICAN Form of Democracy, established upon some
basic Democratic Principals.......

Still, the FACT is America is not a Democracy (as you might prefer).

America is, as was founded 230+ years ago.......America is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, a form of government Ruled by Laws written in the United States Constitution, & established upon some basic Democratic Principals.

The Electoral College System is an important part of those written Constitutional Laws.

How you, or some in this world, want to errantly interpret the form of government America has, is of trivial value.

What the American Founding Fathers actually penned to paper, & instituted 230 years ago, is what Americans have...... & it belongs to us...."WE THE PEOPLE"




 
Last edited:
Top