People wouldn't favor a more powerful Executive branch if Congress hadn't proven itself to be so consistently useless. I think that's something both sides of the aisle can agree on.
If you hadn’t already posted this comment I would have. The Congress has been very dysfunctional throughout multiple presidencies, and is frankly corrupt. I am reminded of Mitch McConnell blocking Obama’s SCOTUS nominees if it was the last year of his presidency. The habit of the House majority impeaching any President of the other party for any reason they can cook up is one of the most egregious abuses of Congressional power. Beyond that, as you said, the two sides simply can’t and won’t work together.
Absolutely right. But as a historian, it's important to see how we got here. I think the last budget by the House was 1996. Since then they have been continuing resolutions. Whose fault is that? The House. Those jerkweeds can't put aside their petty differences long enough to do a simple budget. This is the PRIMARY duty of the House in the Constitution. George W. Bush, of course, greatly expanded the exec (as do all presidents) during the wars. But then Obama, with no war, had his "pen and his phone." You may forget but he was nasty, petulant and totally arrogant in his approach to the BIG GOP CONGRESS of 2010. He insisted they do what he said, not work with them. Fast forward to Trump 1, who said in his SOTU, essentially "I want CONGRESS to do thse things" (border control, etc) but I will do them if you don't." What did Congress (both the GOP and Dems) do? They fiddled around and never passed a border security bill.
Then came Pelosi, who led the House into suicide with the two idiotic impeachments. No discussion of this weakening of Congress should ever take place without making clear Pelosi, who was probably more powerful than Joe Cannon, utterly failed as anything but a rigid partisan. She finished off the House with those impeachments.
The Senate, meanwhile, has become little more than a House of Lords veto. Look at current cabinet confirmation votes. Almost all are strictly on party lines. If you want a less powerful executive, the Senate (in this case the Democrats) better figure out that it must pass things together.
So yes, the presidency has become way too powerful and until or unless the House reclaims the budget process and the senate reclaims serious (not one or two, like Fetterman) bipartisan action on its constitutional duties, . . . well, nature abhors a vacuum.
Yes, the combination of legislative cowering and hyper-partisanship, as Michael Baharaeen correctly suggests, poses a clear and present danger to the future of democracy and our constitutional Republic.
I would hasten to add that Baharaeen's "stakes of winning the highest office in the land become greater" when the size and reach of the central government is not checked. On this front, Republicans in general and the current President in particular make the stronger case with their promise to slash the federal spending and workforce, starting with the return of education to the states. Democrats cannot seem to fathom an area of governance that ought not fall under the authority of Washington.
And it's not as if the executive branch under Democratic control has done a complete nor responsible job with national security and defense, it's most critical enumerated authorities.
Theodore Roosevelt is one of my favorite U.S. Presidents, based not only on his extraordinarily active lifestyle and his honesty, but in the way that he greatly expanded the powers of the presidency in many areas that are of particular concern to me. Those include national defense, conservation of publicly owned natural resources, and consumer protection. But that was at a time when Congress was arguably even more blatantly controlled by entrenched interests than it is now, and now, enough presidential power is enough.
How about repealing the War Powers Act and AUMF as well? It seems totally wrong and a perversion of our system of government that the president can unilaterally wage war for 90 days without congressional approval or funding.
All fair points. Would have more credibility if it came out after Barack Obama talked about the power of his pen or Joe Biden issued EO after EO (especially those in his final days when serious issues exist as to his capacity). If you wrote about this issue during their tenures, my apologies.
Totally agree. I want a less powerful President as long as he has the power to act quickly in the case of a military attack on our country. I also want a less powerful Federal Government with as much as possible and practical done at the state and local level.
But here is the real problem noted in your article that tinkering with the pardon power or anything else won't solve.
In another Center for Politics survey, fully 75 percent of Biden voters and 78 percent of Trump voters believed that Americans who “strongly support” the other party “have become a clear and present danger to the American way of life.”
Nothing short of separation can fix this. We can do it the easy way (Czechoslovakia) or the hard way (Yugoslavia)
This doesn't change the general sentiment of that survey finding, but I do just want to note that the 75% and 78% figures are of those who "somewhat agree" with that statement. The shares of Biden and Trump voters who "strongly agree" with it are 43% and 47%, respectively. I made an update in the piece. It's still alarming, but it's also not quite as dire as the original wording made it sound.
Thanks for the clarification but it is still alarming
I think moving state borders and or creating new states could calm the waters somewhat if people would stop trying to upset the national political balance
As long as anyone, anywhere in government is shrinking it's micromanaging oversized role into people's lives, I'm for it. I can't believe we got to a point where our brains and thoughts were considered "critical infrastructure." The Founders NEVER meant for the government to grow this big.
Your remarks somewhat resemble the positions of the moderate wing of the Libertarian Party, not to be confused with the positions of its anarchist and alt-right infiltrators.
Congress?? You mean that basically useless group that seems only interested in themselves? It seems like it's been a very long time since that body cared about ordinary people. Congress has been brain dead for quite awhile.
People wouldn't favor a more powerful Executive branch if Congress hadn't proven itself to be so consistently useless. I think that's something both sides of the aisle can agree on.
If you hadn’t already posted this comment I would have. The Congress has been very dysfunctional throughout multiple presidencies, and is frankly corrupt. I am reminded of Mitch McConnell blocking Obama’s SCOTUS nominees if it was the last year of his presidency. The habit of the House majority impeaching any President of the other party for any reason they can cook up is one of the most egregious abuses of Congressional power. Beyond that, as you said, the two sides simply can’t and won’t work together.
Absolutely right. But as a historian, it's important to see how we got here. I think the last budget by the House was 1996. Since then they have been continuing resolutions. Whose fault is that? The House. Those jerkweeds can't put aside their petty differences long enough to do a simple budget. This is the PRIMARY duty of the House in the Constitution. George W. Bush, of course, greatly expanded the exec (as do all presidents) during the wars. But then Obama, with no war, had his "pen and his phone." You may forget but he was nasty, petulant and totally arrogant in his approach to the BIG GOP CONGRESS of 2010. He insisted they do what he said, not work with them. Fast forward to Trump 1, who said in his SOTU, essentially "I want CONGRESS to do thse things" (border control, etc) but I will do them if you don't." What did Congress (both the GOP and Dems) do? They fiddled around and never passed a border security bill.
Then came Pelosi, who led the House into suicide with the two idiotic impeachments. No discussion of this weakening of Congress should ever take place without making clear Pelosi, who was probably more powerful than Joe Cannon, utterly failed as anything but a rigid partisan. She finished off the House with those impeachments.
The Senate, meanwhile, has become little more than a House of Lords veto. Look at current cabinet confirmation votes. Almost all are strictly on party lines. If you want a less powerful executive, the Senate (in this case the Democrats) better figure out that it must pass things together.
So yes, the presidency has become way too powerful and until or unless the House reclaims the budget process and the senate reclaims serious (not one or two, like Fetterman) bipartisan action on its constitutional duties, . . . well, nature abhors a vacuum.
Great post!
Yes, the combination of legislative cowering and hyper-partisanship, as Michael Baharaeen correctly suggests, poses a clear and present danger to the future of democracy and our constitutional Republic.
I would hasten to add that Baharaeen's "stakes of winning the highest office in the land become greater" when the size and reach of the central government is not checked. On this front, Republicans in general and the current President in particular make the stronger case with their promise to slash the federal spending and workforce, starting with the return of education to the states. Democrats cannot seem to fathom an area of governance that ought not fall under the authority of Washington.
And it's not as if the executive branch under Democratic control has done a complete nor responsible job with national security and defense, it's most critical enumerated authorities.
Theodore Roosevelt is one of my favorite U.S. Presidents, based not only on his extraordinarily active lifestyle and his honesty, but in the way that he greatly expanded the powers of the presidency in many areas that are of particular concern to me. Those include national defense, conservation of publicly owned natural resources, and consumer protection. But that was at a time when Congress was arguably even more blatantly controlled by entrenched interests than it is now, and now, enough presidential power is enough.
How about repealing the War Powers Act and AUMF as well? It seems totally wrong and a perversion of our system of government that the president can unilaterally wage war for 90 days without congressional approval or funding.
All fair points. Would have more credibility if it came out after Barack Obama talked about the power of his pen or Joe Biden issued EO after EO (especially those in his final days when serious issues exist as to his capacity). If you wrote about this issue during their tenures, my apologies.
Totally agree. I want a less powerful President as long as he has the power to act quickly in the case of a military attack on our country. I also want a less powerful Federal Government with as much as possible and practical done at the state and local level.
Probably true but it won't happen for the reasons you say.
And it would be more convincing if you had said it in 2014.
https://www.npr.org/2014/01/20/263766043/wielding-a-pen-and-a-phone-obama-goes-it-alone
But here is the real problem noted in your article that tinkering with the pardon power or anything else won't solve.
In another Center for Politics survey, fully 75 percent of Biden voters and 78 percent of Trump voters believed that Americans who “strongly support” the other party “have become a clear and present danger to the American way of life.”
Nothing short of separation can fix this. We can do it the easy way (Czechoslovakia) or the hard way (Yugoslavia)
This doesn't change the general sentiment of that survey finding, but I do just want to note that the 75% and 78% figures are of those who "somewhat agree" with that statement. The shares of Biden and Trump voters who "strongly agree" with it are 43% and 47%, respectively. I made an update in the piece. It's still alarming, but it's also not quite as dire as the original wording made it sound.
Thanks for the clarification but it is still alarming
I think moving state borders and or creating new states could calm the waters somewhat if people would stop trying to upset the national political balance
Something like a new Missouri Compromise
As long as anyone, anywhere in government is shrinking it's micromanaging oversized role into people's lives, I'm for it. I can't believe we got to a point where our brains and thoughts were considered "critical infrastructure." The Founders NEVER meant for the government to grow this big.
Your remarks somewhat resemble the positions of the moderate wing of the Libertarian Party, not to be confused with the positions of its anarchist and alt-right infiltrators.
Michael, what in your view could the Congress as an institution do to bolster its own standing with the American people?
Congress?? You mean that basically useless group that seems only interested in themselves? It seems like it's been a very long time since that body cared about ordinary people. Congress has been brain dead for quite awhile.