Here's a simple poll: Does the Executive branch have too much power?

these days are anything but normal :evilfrown:

OMG Hell YES?

Yes and No just don't seem to be enough options.

I don't see what's complicated about it, its a yes/no question to begin with, but more importantly, I didn't put in any qualifiers, on purpose, because I do NOT want this to be about Bush alone. This is beyond Bush, and goes to the heart of our system of Checks and Balances, and whether that system has been working for the past 50 years or so.

I was just teasing.

Our system of checks and balances used to work, but it doesn't seem to anymore. The legislative branch has abdicated much of it's authority to the executive branch and the judicial branch is in the pocket of the executive branch (right now. It may be different when and if we ever have a Democrat in the White House. At that point, there may be more checks and balances in place. I know you didn't want this to be about Democrat or Republican, but the simple point is that, during the Clinton Admin, the congress kept tight control and did a lot of checking and balancing, but refused to when a Republican got into office)

I had already answered "Yes".

The powers were spelled out in the Constitution. Along the way they have been bastardized to fit a moment in time. It's to our advantage to get them back where they belong.....and keep them there.

The presidency will NOT revert because Bush is gone. Every power he has usurped is now precedent UNLESS we impeach his ass.

there is a republican president. IF we get a democratic president they are going to call for the president's authority to be curtailed.

opinion, just switch the words "democratic" and "republican".

This is why I put in no qualifiers, I was implying "Regardless of WHO is in Office", but that went right over some people's heads.

Power tends to be abused by anyone who gets too much of it, even when that same person would never have considered it in the past.

By which I mean: the Bush administration has enunciated a policy wherein the executive branch has near-absolute power -- to suspend civil liberties, to imprison citizens for life without charges, to overrule any law via "signing statements," etc., etc.

While one might say "these are just abuses of the Bush administration," the fact remains that they are the current understanding of the powers of the Presidency. Unless and until they are overruled by the courts (and that means a definitive ruling by the SCOTUS), they remain "on the table," able to be used by any President, of any party. Personally, I'm not enthusiastic about "unitary executive" powers being wielded by a less-abusive leader such as Hillary, or Obama, or Edwards, or even Gore, any more than I am about the current (mal)administration claiming them.