Project 2025

[Dill]

(06-19-2024, 08:02 PM)samhain Wrote: IMO the executive should be limited no matter who they are.  I think it was Hamilton that came up with a lot of the powers/limits of the executive branch.  Most of his plan was to prevent an overpowered president from having enough authority to run over the legislature as King George had to British Parliament.  I also semi-understand that many of the founders didn't even want an executive to exist in the new government.  It just became too messy to go without.  

Gridlock is good and bad.  It sucks that desired change is slow.  It's good that change we don't like is stifled.  Balance.  

The only way a US president should have meaningful, enhanced power is by having a legislature in place that allows it.  At that point, enough voters have decided that he/she  gets a little more leash to run with.  Then they have to survive challenges in court.  Any think tank drafting plans to expand executive power never really believed in the US Constitution anyway.  This wouldn't be changing a social policy or 2 to piss off the libz.  It would be a rejection of how this country has been governed since the beginning.

Yeah. The Articles of Confederation had no exec. What a mess! 

That's why they decided that simple majority was better than gridlock. 

I totally agree with your take on the Unitary Executive. I think it reveals an authoritarian yearning for a powerful leader.
But those supporting are going to argue that they are following the Constitution and the deep state has changed 
government so this is the necessary solution etc.