Should The Presidency Be Nerfed?

[Page]

Let's start by making one thing clear, I don't want this discussion to be all about Trump, nor any past President or potential future President. I would like us to consider what limitations of power should apply to any given President, including the best and worst possible Presidents. So consider what you think should consistently apply to the office yourself regardless of whether your most favored or most hated politician holds the office.

I contend that the office of the President is extremely overpowered, that its powers has far exceeded the Framers' intentions and that its power continues to increase, especially the powers that pertain to being the Commander in Chief of the US military.

The United States constitution declares that only Congress can declare war. The problem is, we don't have a definition of what war is. In the time since 9/11, the US has carried out drone strikes, bombings, deployed troops in an "advisory role", or invaded all of the following countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. But are we at war with Pakistan? Are we at war with Yemen? Congress never declared war on these countries, nor these countries on America, and yet there is war. It seems these days that nothing less than a full scale invasion constitutes war. It seems that war has been redefined.

Do you think a President should be able to unilaterally order a drone strike, air strike, or missile launch against the target country's will, and without Congressional authorization?

I propose that the President's power over the military should be greatly limited: That a President should only be able to take unilateral military action if the United States or a NATO ally is attacked or if there is an imminent threat of attack, and in such a case Congress should be called to assemble as soon as possible to decide on further action. I further propose that if drone strikes or other similar actions are to take place, that can only happen if Congress authorized strikes in that country, and only with the permission of that country's government - again, unless there is an imminent attack against the US or a NATO ally.

I'd also welcome a discussion about the use of executive orders and the President's domestic powers.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Nerf Donald Trump! He’s too overpowered at tearing America apart! It’s not fair!

[Ostroeuropa]

Caesarism and centralization of power to easily replaceable individuals and figureheads is an aspect of plutocratic rule. It is easier to tear down an individual than it is to tear down an entire political party, and easier to use disproportionate wealth to gatekeep a national office like President than one like congress or to a lesser extent the senate.

It is in the interest of the ruling classes to revert to Caesarism, but the election of Trump is the signal that it is degrading like it usually does because the system is untenable. Trump is someone intelligent enough to note the trajectory of Caesarism and use it to his advantage, but not intelligent or ambitious enough to effectively complete the transition. (Replace Trump for Caesar in history. Yeah, that.).

One of two things will happen.

We'll see something like this repeated as the executive government is granted more and more powers and made less and less accountable, a populist member of the ruling class appealing to the masses to reign in the excesses of the others seizing the office, and using it to purge their enemies in the elite class, transitioning the US from an Oligarchy into a Dictatorial-Oligarchic hybrid where the state begins assuming more control over the markets and political allegience to the regime is more of a requirement for wealth than political allegience to wealth is a requirement for the regime.

Or, the corporations will begin to take on the aspects of government that risk this occuring. We're seeing something akin to this with private sector censorship by large tech companies, the rise of private police forces and armies, and so on.

The presidency is accumulating powers because the centralization of power, wealth, and authority is a natural consequence of capitalism as a system.

[Page]

Nerf Donald Trump! He’s too overpowered at tearing America apart! It’s not fair!

Cause of Poe's Law I don't know if this is serious or not

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Yes, it should be. I believe that the government should also be decentralized with a good chunk of powers being returned to the states. Also, we need a new party, as the current congress isn't asserting it's authority when it comes to declaring war due to it being filled with war mongers.

Congress should have to approve airstrikes, unless they officially declare a state of war.

[Page]

Caesarism and centralization of power to easily replaceable individuals and figureheads is an aspect of plutocratic rule. It is easier to tear down an individual than it is to tear down an entire political party, and easier to use disproportionate wealth to gatekeep a national office like President than one like congress or to a lesser extent the senate.

It is in the interest of the ruling classes to revert to Caesarism, but the election of Trump is the signal that it is degrading like it usually does because the system is untenable. Trump is someone intelligent enough to note the trajectory of Caesarism and use it to his advantage, but not intelligent or ambitious enough to complete the transition.

One of two things will happen.

We'll see something like this repeated as the executive government is granted more and more powers and made less and less accountable, a populist member of the ruling class appealing to the masses to reign in the excesses of the others seizing the office, and using it to purge their enemies in the elite class, transitioning the US from an Oligarchy into a Dictatorial-Oligarchic hybrid where the state begins assuming more control over the markets and political allegience to the regime is more of a requirement for wealth than political allegience to wealth is a requirement for the regime.

Or, the corporations will begin to take on the aspects of government that risk this occuring. We're seeing something akin to this with private sector censorship by large tech companies, the rise of private police forces and armies, and so on.

The presidency is accumulating powers because the centralization of power, wealth, and authority is a natural consequence of capitalism as a system.

I agree with everything you said, which doesn't happen often.

[The Black Party]

"IT'S NERF OR NOTHING"
> Shoots the President in the wobbly bits with a nerf gun

[Uxupox]

Yes, it should be. I believe that the government should also be decentralized with a good chunk of powers being returned to the states. Also, we need a new party, as the current congress isn't asserting it's authority when it comes to declaring war due to it being filled with war mongers.

Congress should have to approve airstrikes, unless they officially declare a state of war.

That severely hampers any sort of organization and gives any enemy of whatsoever design an estimated timeline to do a counter operation. This particularly happened in France in WW2 where their political parties had complete domination of their military and even the President of France could not dictate what to do.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes, the presidency since the end of WWII has become powerful in ways that exceed its constitutional mandate.

[Crylante]

Yes, but the fact that I'm a Brit and view parliamentary democracy as a better system to America's might have something to do with that.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Yes, it should be. I believe that the government should also be decentralized with a good chunk of powers being returned to the states. Also, we need a new party, as the current congress isn't asserting it's authority when it comes to declaring war due to it being filled with war mongers.

Congress should have to approve airstrikes, unless they officially declare a state of war.

That severely hampers any sort of organization and gives any enemy of whatsoever design an estimated timeline to do a counter operation. This particularly happened in France in WW2 where their political parties had complete domination of their military and even the President of France could not dictate what to do.

If it's so important, then they can declare war, thus giving that authority to the president.

[The New California Republic]

Limiting the powers of the President would likely require a major Constitutional amendment. Many amendments have come about because there has been an oversight in the Constitution that someone has exploited and taken the piss with. The President would likely have to do something pretty fucking bad in order for there to be the political will and indignation to produce such an amendment.

[Ostroeuropa]

Caesarism and centralization of power to easily replaceable individuals and figureheads is an aspect of plutocratic rule. It is easier to tear down an individual than it is to tear down an entire political party, and easier to use disproportionate wealth to gatekeep a national office like President than one like congress or to a lesser extent the senate.

It is in the interest of the ruling classes to revert to Caesarism, but the election of Trump is the signal that it is degrading like it usually does because the system is untenable. Trump is someone intelligent enough to note the trajectory of Caesarism and use it to his advantage, but not intelligent or ambitious enough to complete the transition.

One of two things will happen.

We'll see something like this repeated as the executive government is granted more and more powers and made less and less accountable, a populist member of the ruling class appealing to the masses to reign in the excesses of the others seizing the office, and using it to purge their enemies in the elite class, transitioning the US from an Oligarchy into a Dictatorial-Oligarchic hybrid where the state begins assuming more control over the markets and political allegience to the regime is more of a requirement for wealth than political allegience to wealth is a requirement for the regime.

Or, the corporations will begin to take on the aspects of government that risk this occuring. We're seeing something akin to this with private sector censorship by large tech companies, the rise of private police forces and armies, and so on.

The presidency is accumulating powers because the centralization of power, wealth, and authority is a natural consequence of capitalism as a system.

I agree with everything you said, which doesn't happen often.

We might also see a byzantine outcome as the excesses of wealth and the centralization of property lead to a situation where one plutocrat up and decides to run a privatized state in order to usurp it. Referring to the historical case where the Byzantine empire entered a period of debt and austerity while one of its nobles seized the initiative to begin opening schools, hospitals, basic welfare, and hiring guards for the public out of "Good will" and "Christian obligation", before finally saying "And now I am Emperor." at a point the state was too much of a rump state to contest the matter, at which point he just up and seized the property and wealth of his enemies and ultimately a made a profit.

"Google is now the government" springs to mind as an outcome.

It seems bizarre and hasn't happened often, but it's there as a possibility.

[Gig em Aggies]

Let's start by making one thing clear, I don't want this discussion to be all about Trump, nor any past President or potential future President. I would like us to consider what limitations of power should apply to any given President, including the best and worst possible Presidents. So consider what you think should consistently apply to the office yourself regardless of whether your most favored or most hated politician holds the office.

I contend that the office of the President is extremely overpowered, that its powers has far exceeded the Framers' intentions and that its power continues to increase, especially the powers that pertain to being the Commander in Chief of the US military.

The United States constitution declares that only Congress can declare war.1. The problem is, we don't have a definition of what war is. In the time since 9/11, the US has carried out drone strikes, bombings, deployed troops in an "advisory role", or 2. invaded all of the following countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. But are we at war with Pakistan? Are we at war with Yemen? Congress never declared war on these countries, nor these countries on America, 2. and yet there is war. It seems these days that nothing less than a full scale invasion constitutes war. It seems that war has been redefined.

Do you think a President should be able to unilaterally order a drone strike, air strike, or missile launch against the target country's will, and without Congressional authorization?

3.I propose that the President's power over the military should be greatly limited: That a President should only be able to take unilateral military action if the United States or a NATO ally is attacked or if there is an imminent threat of attack, and in such a case Congress should be called to assemble as soon as possible to decide on further action. I further propose that if drone strikes or other similar actions are to take place, that can only happen if Congress authorized strikes in that country, and only with the permission of that country's government - again, unless there is an imminent attack against the US or a NATO ally.

I'd also welcome a discussion about the use of executive orders and the President's domestic powers.

1.)The Constitution - The war power. The Framers of the Constitution vested in Congress the sole and exclusive authority to initiate military hostilities, including full-blown, total war, as well as lesser acts of armed force, on behalf of the American people.

2. )the only countries we invaded were Iraq and Afghanistan. Syria, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia either were US Special Forces missions, targeted strikes, or had military advisors to help the local military. plus Pakistan is not a war zone not even in the tribal areas such as Waziristan, ps Pakistan is one of our greatest allies in the war on terror so why would be at war with them? pps why is it that just because there is a war somewhere its always Americas fault Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya were not our fault it was either civil war or a localized fighting against religious extremism.

3.) see #1 plus why in the hell would we ask another countries government before using a drone to do an airstrike? time sensitive targets do not wait for government approval to kill them. do you think we would have killed Bin Laden in 2011 if we waited and asked the Pakistani government for permission to go into its sovereign territory to commit a military action what do you think would have happened oops no bin laden at his house because he was tipped off before hand, years of wasted intelligence gathering and planning.

oh and to answer your question no the powers of the president are where they are due to the checks and balances the Framers of the Constitution.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

"IT'S NERF OR NOTHING"
> Shoots the President in the wobbly bits with a nerf gun

If you actually did that, you’d make the news then get a disproportionate punishment.

[Dogmeat]

Limiting the powers of the President would likely require a major Constitutional amendment. Many amendments have come about because there has been an oversight in the Constitution that someone has exploited and taken the piss with. The President would likely have to do something pretty fucking bad in order for there to be the political will and indignation to produce such an amendment.

Not necessarily. The late 19th century was an era of limited presidency mostly by convention.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Nerf Donald Trump! He’s too overpowered at tearing America apart! It’s not fair!

Cause of Poe's Law I don't know if this is serious or not

I am Kim Jong Un and I think it’s not fair that he is doing more damage than I have, so I might need to use nukes to make me more threatening. That being said, America is much more scared of my tinpot dictatorship, otherwise, why would they treat North Korea more seriously than China.

[Gig em Aggies]

That severely hampers any sort of organization and gives any enemy of whatsoever design an estimated timeline to do a counter operation. This particularly happened in France in WW2 where their political parties had complete domination of their military and even the President of France could not dictate what to do.

If it's so important, then they can declare war, thus giving that authority to the president.

Time sensitive targets do not wait for a enemy nations government to declare war.

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

The President is already nerfed way too much in my opinion

[LiberNovusAmericae]

The President is already nerfed way too much in my opinion

What powers do you want the position to have that it doesn't already?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

If it's so important, then they can declare war, thus giving that authority to the president.

Time sensitive targets do not wait for a enemy nations government to declare war.

Most of those time sensitive targets exist because we are still involving ourselves in the middle east. We should pull out.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Nah I for one wanna see how long it takes us to go full dictator
We keep getting close then chickening out

[Gig em Aggies]

Time sensitive targets do not wait for a enemy nations government to declare war.

Most of those time sensitive targets exist because we are still involving ourselves in the middle east. We should pull out.

Bin laden, Al Queda, Daesh, did not come from us involving ourselves in the middle east Islamic extremism hates western freedoms and democracy so? plus you really show a lack of military and political knowledge with your statements in regards to nerfing the presidential powers when there constricted way to much already so go read up a couple of book on military and international politics and then come back with a proper argument.

[Longweather]

Yes, the presidency should be nerfed and the vice president empowered more. Along with this should be a new Amendment to revise the 12th Amendment so that the vice president is runner up in the presidential election. Give the vice president overview of about a third of the cabinet positions on top of their meager duties. Put in proper checks and balances to prevent government gridlock from antagonistic presidents and vice presidents.

This way the executive branch looks a lot more representative.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Most of those time sensitive targets exist because we are still involving ourselves in the middle east. We should pull out.

Bin laden, Al Queda, Daesh, did not come from us involving ourselves in the middle east Islamic extremism hates western freedoms and democracy so? plus you really show a lack of military and political knowledge with your statements in regards to nerfing the presidential powers when there constricted way to much already so go read up a couple of book on military and international politics and then come back with a proper argument.

What an incredibly uninformed statement.