The true role of a president in the U.S. government

[treee]

One topic of debate among many U.S. citizens is the role of a U.S. president. Some argue that it is merely a symbolic figurehead position, while others postulate that a president is only qualified if they're highly intertwined with the inner workings of Washington. Other points of contention are the amount of power the executive branch has in comparison to the Legislative and Judicial. Some argue that a president should wield much power, such as directly leading U.S. policy, while others argue that a president should be subject to be under the control under congressional oversight. No matter where your viewpoint lands, the role of the president leads to some of the most spirited discussions in politics as we know it.

I want to hear what a president means to my fellow message board posters. Please refrain from using divisive language and do your best to have a thoughtful conversation on the topic.

[*bfine32*]

I think the President should enforce the will of the people. He should not make laws or public policy unless in cases of emergency.

In any case that is not clearly defined by law, he should mandate that congress act

He should have experience in the Military and as a leader.

Just a couple off the top of my head and I used the male pronoun simply because it is easier.

[Belsnickel]

This has actually been on my mind lately, but more in a sense of how I would rather see us move to a parliamentary system. The separation of powers was designed in such a way so that each branch derived its power from a different source. Right now, the executive and legislative each derive their authority from the people. This, to me, muddies the waters a bit with regards to the role of the POTUS. If the authority is going to derived from the same source and we are going to continue to see a crossing over of powers because of it (because to me it is the reliance on the vote of the people that causes the over-reaching) then why not make the move to parliamentary where the PM is head of the executive and the POTUS is purely head of state?

I know that didn't answer the OP's question. I just have been thinking a lot about this and thought it would fit. In truth, I find it hard to accurately describe what I think a POTUS should do in our current system. Yes, diplomat in chief, commander in chief, head of the executive. But what sort of tools are in that toolbox? Where are the lines in what can be done in their execution of the laws? If the executive and legislative are to remain divorced, I am of the opinion that the POTUS should not have a legislative agenda, but who was the last candidate for the position that didn't have one?

Anyway, enough of my ramblings for now.

[JustWinBaby]

The POTUS is a true leader, with a good plan that his party fully supports...and able to reach across the idea for bipartisan support on good ideas.

Who a good POTUS is not: someone who just gives speeches, someone who divides the country and someone who poll tests their decisions because their too gutless to do the right thing when it's unpopular.

[Yojimbo]

I think the most important role is as head of state. It allows the country to speak with one voice when interacting with the international community.

[BmorePat87]

It's a wide encompassing job.

First and foremost, POTUS should be an effective chief executive: leading and managing the many departments and agencies that fall under that branch. Part of that means enforcing the law and determining how to enforce the law. This also means enacting policy within those departments and agencies that follow the spirit of the law. We designed this executive to be independent and neutered. POTUS balances out the power of the legislative while still being restrained.

Second, POTUS needs to be an effective Commander in Chief. That does not necessarily mean having military knowledge as much as it means knowing when to listen to those who do and having the ability to make tough decisions.

Third, POTUS must be a dignified representative of our nation, both at home and abroad. This is the Head of State and Chief Diplomat roles combined. Remain strong while demonstrating the ability to be a non-partisan representative of all citizens.

[*michaelsean*]

Commander in Chief, run the executive branch, and chief diplomat. I don't think the President should have a legislative agenda that he tries to push. That should be Congress, and the President is there to stop any craziness.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

A leader.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Make sure our borders are safe. (Includes diplomacy.)
Make sure our currency is worth something.
Make sure our military can work together.
Make sure our businesses keep to their word.

After that, I am really not too interested in the Federal government (though I am probably missing one or two more things on that list). The rest can fall on the responsibility of the State or lower governments.

As for a President, I view him ideally as a figure who can be the singular voice to the decisions of the masses. Rather than countries having to deal with 100 Senators and 435 Representatives, they can deal with 1 President who should be delivering their message, which ideally be the message of the people's interest and wishes.

But as for pushing policies through the government, and hijacking people's wallets with pet projects, or being able to just go fight with US troops wherever he likes, not a fan of that and not what I think the position is for.

[Belsnickel]

So when the framers wrote the Constitution they saw Congress as the focus. Congress was the government. We didn't see the expansion of the executive branch until the New Deal, really. So if the primary body of government was to rest with Congress and now it is not there, should we reevaluate our current political structure?

[BmorePat87]

(09-14-2016, 07:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So when the framers wrote the Constitution they saw Congress as the focus. Congress was the government. We didn't see the expansion of the executive branch until the New Deal, really. So if the primary body of government was to rest with Congress and now it is not there, should we reevaluate our current political structure?

The power still rests with Congress. We put an emphasis on the President, and that office has more authority now, but Congress still has more power over him. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-14-2016, 07:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So when the framers wrote the Constitution they saw Congress as the focus. Congress was the government. We didn't see the expansion of the executive branch until the New Deal, really. So if the primary body of government was to rest with Congress and now it is not there, should we reevaluate our current political structure?

I think the Legislative Branch has let the Executive and Judicial take some of their power. Instead of complaining about the Judicial's interpretations and the Executive's directives; they should constantly be updating laws to grow asa america does.

[Millhouse]

A President should make decisions that are in the best interest for the entire country, even if it can mean going against his own political party's beliefs. A great example of this was Lyndon B Johnson pushing through and signing the Civil Rights Act in 1964 which went against the Democratic party at the time.