So, Just What Are the Checks and Limits on Presidential Power?

[HCM]

H, I've been sitting back and just monitoring the sorts of responses being offered in the thread and I appreciate all points of view which are offered in good faith.

The point of the thread isn't so much an exploration of classic textbook civics, but more a desire to look behind the curtain where end runs take place.

We all know that certain activities follow the law or the spirit of the law, and that others are clearly attempts to circumvent the law or spirit of the law.

For example, when my investigation during the Bush 41 administration led to uncovering the CIA's role in willfully supporting narco-trafficking into the U.S. (as well as abroad) in furtherance of extralegal agendas...as well as matters involving Caribbean dictatorships which once uncovered were quickly covered up and ignored without justification. It is not credible that this activity went unknown at the very highest levels of the executive branch. (The funny thing is that I received an award and commendation signed by then President Bush as well as an OLEO award during the course of the case, and I always had a soft spot for Bush 41.)

The point being that what concerns me is not when the machinery of government works properly as designed, (as illustrated in textbooks)...but when it is circumvented, perverted, adulterated or willfully ignored.

I wish I had a more positive view of things from my vantage point. I'd prefer to be wrong.

Anything that is visible , or that can be made visible, can be taken to the courts.

For example, Some of Trumps non wall related Immigration initiatives which are reasonable and authorized by statute are currently tied up in the courts. I would rather have those things delayed or even blocked than create a new executive loophole for the left leaning dem who will eventually occupy the WH again sooner or later. Our system is designed to default to making it difficult to get things done for a reason.

The WH changes hands - it is “the cycle of life” so to speak. Trump has a good chance of being re-elected but if he is a Dem is sure to follow. We need to plan accordingly but it’s normal. Trump is no prize but the office has endured worse.

My concerns are the long term plans one party has to put their thumb on the scales and via things like unchecked immigration, resulting fraudulent census numbers and elimination of the electoral college subverting our constitutional republic, replacing it with perpetual one party rule like we see in CA. That is a recipe for a Balkan style shooting war.

[Totem Polar]

The WH changes hands - it is “the cycle of life” so to speak. Trump has a good chance of being re-elected but if he is a Dem is sure to follow. We need to plan accordingly but it’s normal. Trump is no prize but the office has endured worse.

My concerns are the long term plans one party has to put their thumb on the scales and via things like unchecked immigration, resulting fraudulent census numbers and elimination of the electoral college subverting our constitutional republic, replacing it with perpetual one party rule like we see in CA. That is a recipe for a Balkan style shooting war.

FnA right.

[farscott]

Since blues has stated that his concern is not the process/structure of checks and balances as taught in schools, but the actual application, I think the answer is simple: The only checks and balances are the opinions of the subordinates (will someone obey an order they deem to be illegal?), the quality of the media reporting, and the electorate's satisfaction with the situation.

If the people who implement the policies go along, the media fails to demonstrate the issues, and the electorate as whole keeps watching reality shows, there are no effective checks and balances. The system requires that good people move to stop evil actions. Those good people have to be in places from the Cabinet to investigative reporters to LEOs finding, in the course of investigations, that USG personnel have violated the law in the pursuit of foreign policy and/or personal gain. All of those people need to say, "I believe this is illegal based on this evidence. Investigate and verify/refute my beliefs".

Courts are important, but take decades to get results. Good judges are important, and my personal belief is that a Justice need not be an attorney educated in the Ivy League who clerked for a former Justice.

And the populace has to be engaged. If you hate Congress but love YOUR representative and senators, you are part of the problem. Nothing will change if the same set of people govern for decades. Presidents get eight years; Senators seem to get up to fifty years. Which one should be your focus? If you do not vote (and half of us do not), you are part of the problem.

The media is the biggest issue as the left-of-center bias is real, and the actions of one party are portrayed much differently than the same actions of another party. And this is from both sides of the media. Both spin everything to make the "other guy" look wrong. So no one trusts any news because there is so much history of lies (GM exploding C/K-series trucks was a classic) in the pursuit of ratings or an attempt to influence outcomes.

So that is my cynical view of the checks-and-balances.

That being said, I do not believe President Trump is evil and focused on personal gain; I DO believe he is a megalomaniac and not stable (despite his protestations to the contrary). For that reason (and others such as an inability to consistently message anything other than insults), I refused to vote for him in 2016, casting my ballot for a third-party candidate in the hopes of securing funding for the next election. The ballot box is the real check and balance. If that fails, then the reason for the second amendment is in play. And no reasonable person wants that to happen.

[Zincwarrior]

EDITED as already answered.

So now a short public service announcement:

[blues]

Well said, H. Well said, Scott. We very much share the same concerns.

Some of my proudest moments in my years working for "uncle" were when I took a stand against what I perceived to be in at least one case an unlawful order from a "superior", in another a perversion of justice.

I strongly agree that it is up to those who take an oath to serve and protect to fulfill that promise to the best of their ability. That is, or at least should be, the standard for all citizens, not just those in "sworn" positions. (Would that it could be applied to the media as well, but one can only hope for so much.)

[Bart Carter]

What we need is more checks and balances on Congress. How can they stand up and spout lies that they know are not true with no consequences? How can they harass political opponents with their "oversight?" How can they not do their elected jobs because it isn't politically expedient?

As far as elections holding them in check, voters don't vote for what is best for the country. They are swayed by charisma, self interests or they are ideologues.

[blues]

What we need is more checks and balances on Congress. How can they stand up and spout lies that they know are not true with no consequences? How can they harass political opponents with their "oversight?" How can they not do their elected jobs because it isn't politically expedient?

As far as elections holding them in check, voters don't vote for what is best for the country. They are swayed by charisma, self interests or they are ideologues.

Wait til AOC and her cohort gain more traction in congress. That is a day to be feared.

(And the rest of congress is no particular prize either.)

[flyrodr]

Looking back over several decades to the liberal Democrat JFK, and his seemingly-forgotten quote - - - Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country. - - - makes me shake my head and wonder what has happened to the America of my parents and grandparents. Certainly in the deportment and apparent agenda of our elected representatives in Washington.

[Zincwarrior]

What we need is more checks and balances on Congress. How can they stand up and spout lies that they know are not true with no consequences?

What would you do to them? Under this proposed legislation, how does the current President survive?

How can they harass political opponents with their "oversight?"

What you call harassment, others call oversight.

How can they not do their elected jobs because it isn't politically expedient?

Well, they appear to keep getting elected.

As far as elections holding them in check, voters don't vote for what is best for the country. They are swayed by charisma, self interests or they are ideologues.

Doesn't representative democracy suck?

Looking back over several decades to the liberal Democrat JFK, and his seemingly-forgotten quote - - - Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country. - - - makes me shake my head and wonder what has happened to the America of my parents and grandparents. Certainly in the deportment and apparent agenda of our elected representatives in Washington.

You get what you elect. DO you want Lincoln? You elect Lincoln, not the other guy.

[Baldanders]

We reap what we sow.


https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/07/04...-constitution/