Trump Thread

[a completely inoffensive name]

I hope impeachment charges move forward under a Dem congress under entirely political pretenses. And that it becomes precedent.

If this Republic is going to have another dramatic institutional shift along the lines of 1820, 1865, and the 1930s I would wish for a more active Congress, with a dramatically weakened president.
Enough of this imperial presidency concentrating the 'will of the people' into practice.

[Pannonian]

I hope impeachment charges move forward under a Dem congress under entirely political pretenses. And that it becomes precedent.

If this Republic is going to have another dramatic institutional shift along the lines of 1820, 1865, and the 1930s I would wish for a more active Congress, with a dramatically weakened president.
Enough of this imperial presidency concentrating the 'will of the people' into practice.

Isn't that Parliamentary government?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Isn't that Parliamentary government?

No, it would be closer to the U.S. as it practiced politics from 1820s-1860s. Although, with the amount of baseline responsibility POTUS has as a world leader with nukes and whatnot, it would be a different beast entirely.

[Pannonian]

No, it would be closer to the U.S. as it practiced politics from 1820s-1860s. Although, with the amount of baseline responsibility POTUS has as a world leader with nukes and whatnot, it would be a different beast entirely.

Was it Lincoln then, who first significantly accrued power in the executive?

[Montmorency]

Was it Lincoln then, who first significantly accrued power in the executive?

That would be Polk. Or Jackson. Or Jefferson. Definitely Adams?

Uh.....

[a completely inoffensive name]

That would be Polk. Or Jackson. Or Jefferson. Definitely Adams?

Uh.....

Almost all presidents increased power, but they did not increase power to the same degree. Jackson, Lincoln, teddy, FDR really shifted the perception of what the president is/ can be

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Was it Lincoln then, who first significantly accrued power in the executive?

His was the largest single change aside from FDR. However, ACIN is correct that a majority tried to enhance federal power and that Lincoln was certainly not the first.

Washington -- the least power acquisitive of them -- used a recess appointment to pick the CJ of the SCOTUS
Jefferson began a war with the Barbary pirates without Congressional approval, made the Louisiana purchase without prior approval, and allowed support for the slave rebellion in Haiti while minimizing support for the French there.
Monroe allowed General Jackson to conquer Florida as a "oopsie" while conducting a punitive campaign against the Seminole.

...and that is just the first 5. Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus, emanicipation proclamation, and --arguably -- his refusal to see participation in the Union under the Constitution as voluntary, were merely the biggest growth in executive power during our Republic's first century. He was certainly not alone.

[Montmorency]

Personally, we might give the days of the imperial executive, independent of Congress (and first among equals in the party) another shot.

Post-1974 has been executive by committee, corporate boardroom style, or maybe like 1990s Chinese CP. I don't see that you can bundle a weak executive, weak central party control, and a strong Congress in itself, let alone that it would be desirable.

In other news, Puerto Rico votes for statehood again.

The 2012 referendum had a good turnout at 3/4, so while this plebiscite had a much bigger proportion voting for statehood, 97% to 61%*, the turnout at 1/4 is embarrassing.

Unlikely that Congress will pay much attention to the matter.

*This figure not counting the 500,000 blank answers (out of 1.9 million ballots) to the 2012 question on desired status, which altogether suggests most Puerto Ricans don't have much concern about formal status one way or another.

[Sarmatian]

Or simply let POTUS be divided into president and prime minister. Problem solved

[a completely inoffensive name]

Personally, we might give the days of the imperial executive, independent of Congress (and first among equals in the party) another shot.

Post-1974 has been executive by committee, corporate boardroom style, or maybe like 1990s Chinese CP. I don't see that you can bundle a weak executive, weak central party control, and a strong Congress in itself, let alone ...

The imperial executive is unstable in the long term, even in the medium term. We had a future president (nixon) direct his team to commit treason in order to undermine the re-election of the sitting president.

I don't see that you can invoke Roman notions of princepe civitates without any awareness of how quickly augustian/trajan rule devolves into nero/commodus.