by John Galt » Fri Jan 04, 2019 4:49 pm
we've had overblown infatuation with the idea of the president for the past 100 years. while preisdents had taken a lot of power previously, they often stopped doing that (eg Lincoln and his abuse of the office). today we have a president unconstrained by congress. he is supposed to be congress' errand boy, he is supposed to enact the congress' will. but ever since truman brought up "police actions" it's slipped into more dangerous ground to today where we just push buttons and not-americans die and we don't give a shit and congress doesn't do anything about it. which is why we need a constitutional convention. i've been writing a proposal for quite some time, but war powers are something that only congress should be able to authorize, except for the case of defensive action. and no, it's not defensive action to attack afghanistan after 9/11, it would need congressional approval. if that means our intel on where mohammed binalongadingdong is for a wedding or whatever and we have one hour to send in missiles and kill everyone there and congress can't act fast enough, oh well.
i've thought much about the subject and how to constrain presidential power. one thought that has repeatedly intrigued me is how the French system is set up. the president sets general direction about foreign affairs and war and whatnot, but the prime minister handles internal affairs. and the PM is selected from their legislature and he may or may not be of the same party as the president. if they are the same party, he basically just defers to the president, but if not, you can have some serious clashes. having say, the lower house vote on a "vice president", selected from the upper house, i think, would be interesting, especially if we start diving up powers of the executive into multiple people
Americans learn only from catastrophe and not from experience. -- Theodore Roosevelt
My life has become a single, ongoing revelation that I haven’t been cynical enough.