Does the US even need a President?

[Celritannia]

More countries do have Presidents, but they are mainly ceremonial and weak, like the President of Germany.

A country may have a strong Prime Minister/Chancellor due to a Parliamentary System, but that doesn't mean the country does not have a President as a figurehead.

Got figures on that "more countries do have Presidents" cos I think you might be slipping in a few dictators there, masquerading as Presidents just because they have some kind of People's Congress with no power at all ...

The same rule applies to Parliaments as to nation names. A Congress is just a congress. A People's Congress is some people who congregate but have no connection to the People. And a Democratic People's Congress is some people who congregate but have no connection to the People or to Power.

Though it sounds like an easy gig to be a parliamentarian in a Democratic People's Congress, it's a bit of a dud. El Presidente isn't remotely interested in what you have to say, and instead of raking in bribes for favors you can do those of the people who can afford to pay bribes, you have to bribe taxi drivers to take you anywhere. Danger money I guess.

Even if they are dictators, they are still Presidents, not Monarchs. Both a Monarch and a President can be dictatorial or authoritarian.
In some cases, even Prime Ministers, with regards to Mussolini.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... al_systems

[The Two Jerseys]

Considering how many countries don't have presidents, the US doesn't really need one, but changing the system would be hard.

More countries do have Presidents, but they are mainly ceremonial and weak, like the President of Germany.

A country may have a strong Prime Minister/Chancellor due to a Parliamentary System, but that doesn't mean the country does not have a President as a figurehead.

Actually countries with figurehead presidents are in the minority, most countries with presidents have either American-style executives or a semi-presidential system like France and Russia where where the president retains a large amount of power.

[The Three Palins]

Got figures on that "more countries do have Presidents" cos I think you might be slipping in a few dictators there, masquerading as Presidents just because they have some kind of People's Congress with no power at all ...

The same rule applies to Parliaments as to nation names. A Congress is just a congress. A People's Congress is some people who congregate but have no connection to the People. And a Democratic People's Congress is some people who congregate but have no connection to the People or to Power.

Though it sounds like an easy gig to be a parliamentarian in a Democratic People's Congress, it's a bit of a dud. El Presidente isn't remotely interested in what you have to say, and instead of raking in bribes for favors you can do those of the people who can afford to pay bribes, you have to bribe taxi drivers to take you anywhere. Danger money I guess.

Even if they are dictators, they are still Presidents, not Monarchs. Both a Monarch and a President can be dictatorial or authoritarian.
In some cases, even Prime Ministers, with regards to Mussolini.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... al_systems

Ah. I assumed we were talking about Presidents "as Americans understand the title" but apparently it's "any punk that calls himself a President" so OK. It's hard not to be US-centric when so much discussion on here revolves around the Middle Kingdom of the West.

Damn, I was so proud of that quip until I googled it and discovered the Real Middle Kingdom was in Egypt not China. These days, being Sino-centric is no better than being US-centric. I'm a clown.

[Peatiktist]

The entire system of checks and balances would collapse without a President.

The two checks/balances that the President gets are vetoing bills, and choosing Supreme Court judges.
Without a President, Congress could pass whatever bills they want. Additionally, the Supreme Court judges would eventually all die, leaving no one to say that the bills Congress passes are unconstitutional.

[The Three Palins]

The entire system of checks and balances would collapse without a President.

The two checks/balances that the President gets are vetoing bills, and choosing Supreme Court judges.
Without a President, Congress could pass whatever bills they want. Additionally, the Supreme Court judges would eventually all die, leaving no one to say that the bills Congress passes are unconstitutional.

On the contrary. The most significant "check" or "balance" is the House and Senate having to agree on the same bill to pass it. That's the main game, it's the whole enchilada.

Just tweak the rules a bit. No more veto powers, and nothing of value was lost. Have the House or the court itself make nominations, the big fuss remains whether Congress will approve them or not.

You forgot the military. If you want to be militaristic it helps to have a guy to lie to Congress about WMD's or the Bay of Tonkin incident or the ramping up of military aid via passenger liners in the sure knowledge that Mr Hitler would get tired of that in a hurry.

If you want to be a peaceful nation that can amply defend itself and only gets into foreign adventures after proper deliberation in which the for and against cases are both heard publicly? Then you'd honestly be better off with a Prime Minister.


(Btw, the President nominates the other Federal judges, not just the Supreme Court. And Ambassadors etc. 535 positions in fact! Though to give you some idea of how vital those are to the functioning of government, 133 of them are still unfilled by Trump)

[Sundiata]

I think that the United States should keep the presidential system but abolish the electoral college.

Oh, thank you.

[ImperialRussia]

Oh, thank you.

California is going to win every time

[The Three Palins]

Trump was a tinkerer. Does anyone honestly think that if the Veto had a label on it CAUTION, EXTREMELY POWERFUL, DO NOT PULL THIS LEVER UNLESS YOU HAVE READ THE MANUAL AND RECIEVED NATIONAL SECURITY TRAINING that he'd go "gee, I'd better leave that alone until y'know"?

Nah, he'd be too curious to see what Veto-ing a bill actually does. And he'd be angry when he pulled it a bit and nothing seemed to happen. This is like the Big Red Button in a supervillain film. No-one is ever supposed to push it, but you just know someone will. How can NOTHING HAPPEN, that's like saying every one of those Big Red Buttons was fake!?

My point is that Trump would have used the veto far more often than Obama. Not just because that's how to win (do in one term what Obama needed two terms for) but because if it doesn't do anything the first time you have to keep trying over and over until it does. "Do stupid shit, no-one will care" is like Trump's motto. Making people give a single solitary fuck about what he says or does, is his life's ambition. Tragically still unfilled, but he shouldn't give up. One day he may do stupidly huge stupid shit and people will all stand and applaud the underperforming scion of a genuinely impressive New American Capitalist Pig, letting him retire gracefully from public life.

But until then he'll keep pulling every lever labelled "CAUTION" or "DUMMY LEVER NOT RELATED TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS" in the hope something happens and he can finally realize his life's dream of being lionized by ... well everyone.

What he doesn't know is that Obama's personal prank on leaving office was to switch the labels around. The one labelled CARPORT DOOR launches ... actually maybe better not to give that away. This is a historical record for longevity of lame duck pranks btw. Certainly beating Buchanan's stunt of employing a gay barber, which in any case some dispute being a factor in Lincoln's facial hair choices.

[Narland]

Okay yes I realise the its in the Constitution and stuff but could the USA work even without a President?

As I understand it Congress makes the legislation and currently has to approve any official appointments, executive orders and declarations of war made by the President. So why not cut out the middle man? Ie Does Congress have the capacity to do those things directly?

How much would it upset the system? States would still have their representatives, the Military would be subject to Congress, The Supreme Court would still exist to interpret Law and provide judicial review on Congress.

So NSG is a USA with No President viable? Is it desirable?

I’m not from the US so might be missing something and Im a monarchist and thus prefer a non-partisan Head of State beholden to Tradition rather than politic, but I’m considering alternatives that might apply in the USA - (I suppose in absence of a President does the Speaker of the House become HOS?)

Re: Could the USA work even without a President?
No. The United States divides powers between an independent legislative (the Congress), an independent executive (the President), and an independent judiciary (the Supreme Court).

Re: Ie Does Congress have the capacity to do those things directly?
No. The legislative only has sole power to pass Lawful statutes at large that have the force of law. But it is the executive that has sole power to enforce duly constituted Law, (and the judiciary has sole power to adjudicate Lawful jurisprudence).

Re: So why not cut out the middle man?
No independent Executive means no duly constituted enforcement mechanism for the Federal Government. It is unlawful for Congress to do anything specifically delegated to the other branches (or reserved to the several States or the People), except for the specific checks and balances assigned to it by the Constitution. These, the separation of powers, federal divisions, constitutional limitations, Bill of Rights, et al., are used to hinder each of the Federal branches of government from malfeasance.

How much would it upset the system?
It would upset the system like removing a leg from a three legged stool. Also, unlawfully voiding of one part of the Federal Constitution voids the entire Constitution which dissolves the Lawful means by which the Federal government derives its authority. That means that the 13 original States revert back to being their own sovereign States under their respective Constitutions. All subsequent states likewise. The special districts, territories and trusts are remanded back to their former states). Under such a scenario, any attempts by the Federal government to assert jurisdiction without duly constituted authority (no Constituton, no reason for the Federal Government) would be invasive and despotic lawlessness.

Re: States would still have their representatives,
No comfort there -- Congress is the least trusted, least liked corporate body in the United States. At any given Congress at least 20% are felons. Having toe fungus and shingles have polled more popular than having Congress.

Re: the Military would be subject to Congress,
The military is only funded by Congress, but under the Executive. The US Army (1775) has primacy (was established before Congress (1787)) and is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the US and protect it from all enemies foreign and domestic; and obey all lawful orders from the executive – it is under no obligation to Congress. No executive means no lawful orders to follow. The National Guard would revert back to their respective Governors and Legislatures. The Standing Army would be duty bound (by its Constitutional oath) to restore the Executive.

Re: The Supreme Court would still exist to interpret Law and provide judicial review on Congress.
Except there would be no executive to carry out the writs, summons, and judgments of the court, nor to appoint new judges once old ones pass away. Eventually there would be no Supreme Court.

So NSG is a USA with No President viable?
No for the aforementioned reasons.

[The Three Palins]

Okay yes I realise the its in the Constitution and stuff but could the USA work even without a President?

As I understand it Congress makes the legislation and currently has to approve any official appointments, executive orders and declarations of war made by the President. So why not cut out the middle man? Ie Does Congress have the capacity to do those things directly?

How much would it upset the system? States would still have their representatives, the Military would be subject to Congress, The Supreme Court would still exist to interpret Law and provide judicial review on Congress.

So NSG is a USA with No President viable? Is it desirable?

I’m not from the US so might be missing something and Im a monarchist and thus prefer a non-partisan Head of State beholden to Tradition rather than politic, but I’m considering alternatives that might apply in the USA - (I suppose in absence of a President does the Speaker of the House become HOS?)

Re: Could the USA work even without a President?
No. The United States divides powers between an independent legislative (the Congress), an independent executive (the President), and an independent judiciary (the Supreme Court).

Re: Ie Does Congress have the capacity to do those things directly?
No. The legislative only has sole power to pass Lawful statutes at large that have the force of law. But it is the executive that has sole power to enforce duly constituted Law, (and the judiciary has sole power to adjudicate Lawful jurisprudence).

Your point? That it couldn't work because the US ain't like that, and if the system was changed so radically then the new system wouldn't be a true Scotsman the US at all?

Bear in mind a broader definition is possible. There are States, and they are United in some way. By that definition, the Senate is indispensable (and the Constitution agrees). But the Presidency, or indeed the House, are neither of them defining features.

I'm happy to reply to the rest of your post, but let's see first if that's worth your time or mine.

[The Three Palins]

Maybe a better definition of the United States is "that continuous nation-state which expresses and conforms with the Constitution, however it is legitimately amended". Ie, an extremely broad range of possibilities, providing they include equal representation of all States in the national government.

You may be excused for thinking I crafted my definition to allow Sack the President, bolt for the line TOUCHDOWN but no honestly trying for the most correct definition of a name so often taken in vain.

[Celritannia]

More countries do have Presidents, but they are mainly ceremonial and weak, like the President of Germany.

A country may have a strong Prime Minister/Chancellor due to a Parliamentary System, but that doesn't mean the country does not have a President as a figurehead.

Actually countries with figurehead presidents are in the minority, most countries with presidents have either American-style executives or a semi-presidential system like France and Russia where where the president retains a large amount of power.

That's not what I was arguing.
I was saying more countries have Presidents overall; Ceremonial, Executive, or Semi-Presidential.

I even bolded my argument for you.

[Chestaan]

Not a fan of appeals to the constitution. Fairly poor document overall

[Celritannia]

Even if they are dictators, they are still Presidents, not Monarchs. Both a Monarch and a President can be dictatorial or authoritarian.
In some cases, even Prime Ministers, with regards to Mussolini.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... al_systems

Ah. I assumed we were talking about Presidents "as Americans understand the title" but apparently it's "any punk that calls himself a President" so OK. It's hard not to be US-centric when so much discussion on here revolves around the Middle Kingdom of the West.

Damn, I was so proud of that quip until I googled it and discovered the Real Middle Kingdom was in Egypt not China. These days, being Sino-centric is no better than being US-centric. I'm a clown.

No, that's not what I was saying at all.
Firstly, I am from the UK, so I am not saying it from an American standpoint.
Secondly, I shared a Wikipedia article with a table showing countries have more Presidents, Ceremonial, Semi-Presidential, and Executive Presidents.

So no, it is not "American-Centric", it's a simple fact, does said country have a Monarch or a President? And more countries do have Presidents, excluding single party states of course.

[The Two Jerseys]

Actually countries with figurehead presidents are in the minority, most countries with presidents have either American-style executives or a semi-presidential system like France and Russia where where the president retains a large amount of power.

That's not what I was arguing.
I was saying more countries have Presidents overall; Ceremonial, Executive, or Semi-Presidential.

I even bolded my argument for you.

And you followed it up by saying "but they are mainly ceremonial and weak", which I pointed out is incorrect.

[Celritannia]

That's not what I was arguing.
I was saying more countries have Presidents overall; Ceremonial, Executive, or Semi-Presidential.

I even bolded my argument for you.

And you followed it up by saying "but they are mainly ceremonial and weak", which I pointed out is incorrect.

66 countries have a ceremonial President, or a weak President in a Semi-Presidential system (parliamentary approval and confidence required for Presidential support like South Africa, or a strong Prime Minister with the legislature being able to void any Presidential authority, like South Korea).

[Phoenicaea]

the collective government, where legislative body has a prominence, has been proof in xix.th century, in revolutionary ages, and plausibly will be. i do not see how it can happen nowadays, still..who knows.

Why make your point even harder to get by using Roman numerals? Is it some subtle point about how successful the Romans were despite sucking at math?

..This was my 100th post. The irony!

aah, it was not the irony, it was a sign from the gods. it was a subtle argument on how liberal constitutionalism was good. it was, at the end, a praise to romans in a psychological root.

[Heloin]

What would you reccomend as a replacement, then?

Me.

[Ethel mermania]

What would you reccomend as a replacement, then?

Me.

[Heloin]

Me.

Free booze for all.

[Ethel mermania]

Free booze for all.

If a socialist ran on a free booze campaign, i might listen

[Pan Evropa]

Yes. Most domestic policy can be handled by the legislative branch but leaving foreign policy to the legislature is disastrous. It is important to have a single individual guiding foreign policy.

[Major-Tom]

With our current system, yes. The President primes the agenda as the Executive and can also serve as part of the balance of power should Congress pass bills wildly outside the mainstream.

[The Black Forrest]

Free booze for all.

If a socialist ran on a free booze campaign, i might listen

You know you would partake.

I would.