Question: Why do we need an Executive Branch?
I'm doing a paper on the question and I wanted to hear some other thoughts on the subject.
Why do we need an Executive Branch? Would we be better off with a "Republican Parliamentary" system of government? Prime Minister instead of President? And anything else you can think of... Go! |
decapitated bodies wander about running into walls.
|
Quote:
|
Points, it sounds to me like they want to either argue for or against the US parliamentary system.
Are you for or against? |
Quote:
|
Like this:
Quote:
|
The executive branch, in theory, is just one more check on the power of the government. The executive checks the legislative branch.
In practice, though, what we have is a half-crippled dictatorship. The executive has taken a lot more power than it's constitutionally given. |
Ibram. I don't see the problem being stolen power. There has to be someone invested with great power to handle emergent situations. What has happened, however, is that ad hoc measures have been extended into law by a subservient Congress.
That said, I don't study the government very closely. |
Why do we need an Executive Branch?
Because that's the way our Constitution set up our government. Without the executive branch it would be someone else's form of government. You know, one of those icky Parliament things.
You could do away with all three branches and let me be dictator, but I don't think you'd like that very much. |
King Bruce - gotta admit - It has a nice ring.
|
well, you need a third branch to balance and check the other two. Simplistic answer, I know. The other function of the executive branch of government, and remember there's an executive branch at all levels, federal, state, and local, is to provide police powers, to keep the peace. Or wage war, as necessary.
|
Quote:
Quote:
I agree with a need for the executive branch, and for necessary powers during extraordinary times. But the fact that he can sign an act, but change some very key things? The judicial branch is almost powerless. You can look at Brown vs Board of Education. Many declare this as resulting in desegregation of public schools. B vs BE was decided in 1954. Desegregation didn't immediately follow. It took the President in 1957 to enforce it by sending troops to Little Rock. Its certainly true that B vs BE paved the way, but the judicial branch lacks any enforcement capabilities. |
Quote:
|
All the presidents have used signing statements to get things done around Congress or to declare their intent. Not new.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php |
the government is like a three legged stool, mmkay? if'n you take away one of those legs, your stool just leans too far to one side until it falls over, mmkay?
|
Why are we doing your homework?
|
it is the american way.
|
First world cop, now world detention monitor?
Is that a promotion? |
hey don't look at me - i don't want a freakin' nanny state.
|
Quote:
First question goes back even to how operations were conducted 2000 years before the New World was discovered - before Christ. Any operation conducted without a sole leader in the field was doomed to failure. It was well known that long ago. Same is a problem in Airbus that has multiple leaders and therefore could not avert major manufacturing failures and therefore requires government subsidies. Same mistake was made by the British in 1770s America. Same mistake was made by mental midgets who never learned basic management concepts and imposed their stupidity in Iraq. The fractured American leadership was directly traceable to a supreme commander sitting in the Pentagon where he had no idea of reality and he was divorced from the only thing necessary for success. Some mistake an executive as a dictator. When the executive is a dictator, then the best one can hope for is stunning short term gains and a long term disaster. Great leaders do not dictate. Great leaders seek out and promote the innovators within their system. See the movie Apollo 13 to understand why great management meant 3 astronauts, who should have died, were saved. Danger of a sole executive is found in another well understood concept. When they live too long in the ethersphere (typically 10 years), then they become corrupt and disattached. They forget what their job is. Too many yes-men and power grabbers have converged around them. They forget what once made them so successful. They lose touch with what kept them honest. For this reason, governments also need a Congress, Parliament, Senate, Knesset, Board of Directors, or Dumas. Once a leader becomes a dictator (instead of an advocate of the people), then a committee with power must save that institution from that dictator. How badly did Carly Fiornia harm Hewlett Packard before the board finally removed her? Need we cite Richard Nixon as one of the greatest threats to this nation's government? Other examples were Johnson's wise men who finally got him to realize the disastrous mistake called Vietnam. A most recent example of why an executive is required is the American management in 2003 Iraq. American soldiers are still dying because the administration violated management principles well proven even 2500 years ago. Worse is that the Congress was even so dumb as to go along with it. Examples include Tom Daschle, Democratic Senate leader. You would think after all these centuries, when stupid management mistakes are obvious, then people in power would see it? But Iraq is the perfect example of management corruption created or advocated by Bremmer, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, Feith, George Jr, and especially Cheney. Management always needs a central leader. But, do not confuse that leader with something corrupt - a dictator. Great management has central leadership that is not a dictatorship. Does the leader work for his people / institution? Or do the people / institution work for the leader? Reasons why are found in what that management must do to advance mankind: innovate. |
Wow, I leave for a week, and there is sooo much to read.
Because we need leadership. Leadership and management are very, very different things. Leaders, any leaders, lead at the consent of those they lead. We have a "President", because that is the way our government is described in our constitution. Lumberjim is correct. |
Quote:
Which of lumberjim's two posts are correct, if you please? Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
As the top dog they choose ministers and set agendas, but do not have the individual power to set policy and law. |
Pick one.
|
An "executive" of some type may be a prerequisite for and a defining characteristic of a modern state. I mean, is there a country today without either an elected, hereditary, or conqueror-type figurehead? Even if it is more than one person, or more than one figurehead.
|
:corn:
I think watching people thinking well is fun. |
Quote:
Glad you're having fun though. :) |
Quote:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...dreds_of_laws/ |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
TheMercenary does not care because belligerence, violence, hate, and more wars mean the greater glory for extremism. He even hates immigrants such as ants, bees, and earth worms. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Does he call her Hitlary because she is his next target? Isn't that how extremists gain power? Meanwhile, those who learned basic science know that ants, bees, and earthworms are immigrants. All arrived without using Ellis Island. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Its TOM!
(isn't it?) |
I think he made a comment about the unibomber once and has just run with it.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Now Merc, thats just mean.
|
I like the t-dub!
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:16 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.