• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the President of the USA a Surrogate Monarch?

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The US really needs a monarch. Authoritarians need an authoritarian figurehead, and there is a large population of people who think and feel in symbols.
Currently the US president serves both as symbolic figurehead and a CEO. These functions are not compatable, and one interferes with the other.
We really need two separate "leaders" One to administer administrative affairs, another to serve as a symbol and advocate of propriety and traditional values.
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
The US really needs a monarch. Authoritarians need an authoritarian figurehead, and there is a large population of people who think and feel in symbols.
Currently the US president serves both as symbolic figurehead and a CEO. These functions are not compatable, and one interferes with the other.
We really need two separate "leaders" One to administer administrative affairs, another to serve as a symbol and advocate of propriety and traditional values.

You know, I wonder if this wouldn't be a good thing?

The problem would be how do we choose someone for the symbolic role and how would that role be continued.

I think it's a little easier in nations that are more homogenous.
 

NoahideHiker

Religious Headbanger
The US really needs a monarch. Authoritarians need an authoritarian figurehead, and there is a large population of people who think and feel in symbols.
Currently the US president serves both as symbolic figurehead and a CEO. These functions are not compatable, and one interferes with the other.
We really need two separate "leaders" One to administer administrative affairs, another to serve as a symbol and advocate of propriety and traditional values.

With the exception of a few our presidents have been able to walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. Our system has had pretty good results so far so I see no need to change them as we have a three way balance of power. That is very important.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Good point, Hiker. The system of checks and balances is crucial to our republic. Unfortunately the Executive is arrogating power and privilege, while the craven, pusillamimous legislative branch has surrendered it's function and become a rubber stamp.
We are rushing headlong into an autocratic empire.
 

Somkid

Well-Known Member
No not at all, the president has no more power than the prime minister of England, the only true power he has is the power of veto, other than that he needs the approval of congress to do anything.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You haven't ben reading the news, Somkid. Bush has declared himself above the law, and ha begun to rule by ukase.
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
Good point, Hiker. The system of checks and balances is crucial to our republic. Unfortunately the Executive is arrogating power and privilege, while the craven, pusillamimous legislative branch has surrendered it's function and become a rubber stamp.
We are rushing headlong into an autocratic empire.

frubals esp for craven and pusillanimous.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Don't celebrate too early. We might end up with McKain who I'm sure will carry on the torch of corruption and incompetence.
While I feel he has devolved into a war monger, I see ANY of the three as a bold step away from incompetence and corruption. I just don't see Haliburton getting a free ride McCain.

Shrub was truly an exception, even for Republicans.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
If you really want to find out some very frightening stuff about the power of the presidency and it's abuse, see this FrontLine documentary called "Chaney's Law".

For three decades Vice President Dick Cheney conducted a secretive, behind-closed-doors campaign to give the president virtually unlimited wartime power. Finally, in the aftermath of 9/11, the Justice Department and the White House made a number of controversial legal decisions. Orchestrated by Cheney and his lawyer David Addington, the department interpreted executive power in an expansive and extraordinary way, granting President George W. Bush the power to detain, interrogate, torture, wiretap and spy -- without congressional approval or judicial review.

Now, as the White House appears ready to ignore subpoenas in the investigations over wiretapping and U.S. attorney firings, FRONTLINE examines the battle over the power of the presidency and Cheney's way of looking at the Constitution.

"The vice president believes that Congress has very few powers to actually constrain the president and the executive branch," former Justice Department attorney Marty Lederman tells FRONTLINE. "He believes the president should have the final word -- indeed the only word -- on all matters within the executive branch."

After Sept. 11, Cheney and Addington were determined to implement their vision -- in secret. The vice president and his counsel found an ally in John Yoo, a lawyer at the Justice Department's extraordinarily powerful Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). In concert with Addington, Yoo wrote memoranda authorizing the president to act with unparalleled authority.

"Through interviews with key administration figures, Cheney's Law documents the bruising bureaucratic battles between a group of conservative Justice Department lawyers and the Office of the Vice President over the legal foundation for the most closely guarded programs in the war on terror," says FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk. This is Kirk's 10th documentary about the Bush administration's policies since 9/11.

In his most extensive television interview since leaving the Justice Department, former Assistant Attorney General Jack L. Goldsmith describes his initial days at the OLC in the fall of 2003 as he learned about the government's most secret and controversial covert operations. Goldsmith was shocked by the administration's secret assertion of unlimited power.

"There were extravagant and unnecessary claims of presidential power that were wildly overbroad to the tasks at hand," Goldsmith says. "I had a whole flurry of emotions. My first one was disbelief that programs of this importance could be supported by legal opinions that were this flawed. My second was the realization that I would have a very, very hard time standing by these opinions if pressed. My third was the sinking feeling, what was I going to do if I was pressed about reaffirming these opinions?"

As Goldsmith began to question his colleagues' claims that the administration could ignore domestic laws and international treaties, he began to clash with Cheney's office. According to Goldsmith, Addington warned him, "If you rule that way, the blood of the 100,000 people who die in the next attack will be on your hands."

Goldsmith's battles with Cheney culminated in a now-famous hospital-room confrontation at Attorney General John Ashcroft's bedside. Goldsmith watched as White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andy Card pleaded with Ashcroft to overrule the department's finding that a domestic surveillance program was illegal. Ashcroft rebuffed the White House, and as many as 30 department lawyers threatened to resign. The president relented.

But Goldsmith's victory was temporary, and Cheney's Law continues the story after the hospital-room standoff. At the Justice Department, White House Counsel Gonzales was named attorney general and tasked with reasserting White House control. On Capitol Hill, Cheney lobbied Congress for broad authorizations for the eavesdropping program and for approval of the administration's system for trying suspected terrorists by military tribunals.

As the White House and Congress continue to face off over executive privilege, the terrorist surveillance program, and the firing of U.S. attorneys, FRONTLINE tells the story of what's formed the views of the man behind what some view as the most ambitious project to reshape the power of the president in American history.
 
Top