A constitutional amendment to give President a little more legislative power
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:53:07 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  A constitutional amendment to give President a little more legislative power
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: A constitutional amendment to give President a little more legislative power  (Read 765 times)
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 22, 2016, 12:25:00 AM »

Right now, the President has a little legislative power: he/she has time to veto a bill before it becomes a law. (Which Congress could override with a supermajority). Yes, the President can also issue executive orders and stuff like that... but that's only based on either the President's constitutional responsibilities, or based on powers that Congress gave the President and could take away if it wanted to.

But what if we gave the President just a bit more legislative power, while still keeping a system of checks and balances?

What if the President could propose a legislative bill... and then Congress could pass a "congressional veto," by a simple 50%+1 majority in both House/Senate? And if Congress doesn't veto it, then it becomes law after the same period of time as when Congress is waiting for a President to veto or sign a bill.

That way the President could force Congress to actually take a stand and vote on an issue... and some things that would pass if there was a vote, but Congress never brings up for petty reasons, would actually get done. It wouldn't end gridlock, it wouldn't give the President dictatorial powers or anything, but it would grease the wheels and allow government to function a little better and force a vote on more matters.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2016, 01:06:49 AM »

And if the president's party blocks action on the bill via one method or the other and it automatically becomes law?

I really do mean no offense, but this is a terrible idea. Presidents would be using it to screw with the opposition party come election time like you wouldn't believe. I would rather the minority party in Congress be given more power to force votes and more rules that force Congress to act in certain circumstances to prevent things like year-long SCOTUS nomination blockades or to prevent power from becoming too centralized (like it is now)
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2016, 01:26:46 AM »

And if the president's party blocks action on the bill via one method or the other and it automatically becomes law?

I really do mean no offense, but this is a terrible idea. Presidents would be using it to screw with the opposition party come election time like you wouldn't believe. I would rather the minority party in Congress be given more power to force votes and more rules that force Congress to act in certain circumstances to prevent things like year-long SCOTUS nomination blockades or to prevent power from becoming too centralized (like it is now)
What you're really asking for is more centralization. That's what would make those things happen.

I've been considering if a parliamentary system is better. This seems like a good compromise.

And the President's party could only block a veto on the bill if they had a simple majority who voted to NOT veto it.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2016, 12:50:24 PM »

And if the president's party blocks action on the bill via one method or the other and it automatically becomes law?

I really do mean no offense, but this is a terrible idea. Presidents would be using it to screw with the opposition party come election time like you wouldn't believe. I would rather the minority party in Congress be given more power to force votes and more rules that force Congress to act in certain circumstances to prevent things like year-long SCOTUS nomination blockades or to prevent power from becoming too centralized (like it is now)
What you're really asking for is more centralization. That's what would make those things happen.

I've been considering if a parliamentary system is better. This seems like a good compromise.

And the President's party could only block a veto on the bill if they had a simple majority who voted to NOT veto it.

Well, not exactly. I agree with the idea that giving power to the president to push legislation could help alleviate some forms of obstruction and gridlock, it's only 1 approach to solving the gridlock issue. It's an approach I do not favor. I favor mitigating the ability to obstruct using changes to the way Congress operates, and not by introducing a new legislative vector.

I actually like your idea to some degree, but not the auto-enactment if not veto'd by Congress. If I had to choose some variation of this idea, it would something along the lines of POTUS being able to introduce a bill to Congress if he can get 1/3rd of each chamber to side with him, and by doing this, forcing Congress to vote on the bill with no ability to filibuster. No auto-enactment, but also gives another method to bypass obstructionist methods. Requiring substantial Congressional support means the president can't as easily screw around for partisan purposes. So POTUS + 1/3rd Congress to introduce, then simple majority to pass.

It's a fun thought exercise, but changes to the way legislating works in Congress outside of maybe filibuster reform is almost a fantasy at this current point in time.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,353


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2016, 05:51:24 PM »

Terrible idea
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2016, 06:00:53 PM »

And if the president's party blocks action on the bill via one method or the other and it automatically becomes law?

I really do mean no offense, but this is a terrible idea. Presidents would be using it to screw with the opposition party come election time like you wouldn't believe. I would rather the minority party in Congress be given more power to force votes and more rules that force Congress to act in certain circumstances to prevent things like year-long SCOTUS nomination blockades or to prevent power from becoming too centralized (like it is now)
What you're really asking for is more centralization. That's what would make those things happen.

I've been considering if a parliamentary system is better. This seems like a good compromise.

And the President's party could only block a veto on the bill if they had a simple majority who voted to NOT veto it.

Well, not exactly. I agree with the idea that giving power to the president to push legislation could help alleviate some forms of obstruction and gridlock, it's only 1 approach to solving the gridlock issue. It's an approach I do not favor. I favor mitigating the ability to obstruct using changes to the way Congress operates, and not by introducing a new legislative vector.

I actually like your idea to some degree, but not the auto-enactment if not veto'd by Congress. If I had to choose some variation of this idea, it would something along the lines of POTUS being able to introduce a bill to Congress if he can get 1/3rd of each chamber to side with him, and by doing this, forcing Congress to vote on the bill with no ability to filibuster. No auto-enactment, but also gives another method to bypass obstructionist methods. Requiring substantial Congressional support means the president can't as easily screw around for partisan purposes. So POTUS + 1/3rd Congress to introduce, then simple majority to pass.

It's a fun thought exercise, but changes to the way legislating works in Congress outside of maybe filibuster reform is almost a fantasy at this current point in time.
Thanks for the input! These are the kinds of comments I hope for when I make threads like these
Logged
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,613


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2016, 06:07:17 PM »

Honestly, the last thing the executive needs is more power. If anything, we need to tighten loopholes, clarify exactly what executive orders can cover, and tighten up the rules for committing US forces to foreign conflicts.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,963
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2016, 11:27:58 PM »

No, a President's job isn't to legislate.

Institutional reforms should focus on fixing Congress itself.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2016, 03:28:58 AM »

I don't think it's a good idea. If anything, the powers of the Presidency should be weakened and should be more accountable to Congress. (And I'm saying that as a strong supporter of this President and who is more than likely not our next President.) If we're going to preserve separation of powers (which I am not a fan of, to be honest, as far the legislative and executive branches are concerned), I would rather support reestablishing the legislative veto that was ruled unconstitutional in INS v. Chadha. I do find it interesting that no President has ever actively sued in federal court to try to overturn the War Powers Act (which acts as a two-house veto rather than the one-house veto that was overturned).
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,590
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2016, 04:20:26 AM »

I think it should remain as it is. The power to make/write laws belongs into the legislative branch of government. This doesn't mean that the president shouldn't be able to introduce/propose laws. However, I am strongly in favor of a line-item veto.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2016, 05:07:09 AM »

However, I am strongly in favor of a line-item veto.
.

As someone that opposes increasing the power of the Presidency, I am a vehement opponent of the line-item veto. Congress passes a bill as-is, often the result of various compromises between both parties. A line-item veto would upset that balance and tilt the balance heavily towards the party of the President. Depending on the strength of the line-item veto, a more powerful version would have allowed GWB to veto the minimum wage increase out of an Iraq War spending bill in 2007, never mind that it was a carefully crafted compromise.
Logged
Mercenary
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,575


Political Matrix
E: -3.94, S: -2.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2016, 08:22:28 PM »

No.
The president needs less power, not.more.

The problem lies in congress and the representativez themselves.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.038 seconds with 11 queries.