Checks and balances on a president exist

I heard something interesting on Monday: someone (I don’t remember for certain who it was) on MSNBC was talking about how the Founding Father set up this nation and what has changed – in particular, one thing that caught my attention was when he said that the POTUS originally had very little power on his own. And, he went on, that is theoretically still true, except that Congress rarely holds the President to the constitutional limitations.

Fast forward two days, and it appears that a number of other people are jumping on the bandwagon (think this has anything to do with who won the election? :hmmm:). I’ve found, among other articles (mostly opinion), the title article of this thread. You can see it online here:

Checks and balances on a president exist

“Checks and balances on a president exist”

Sure they do. But they’re apparently rarely enforced.

Case in point, Obama’s czars and his executive orders, which circumvent Congress.

Trump promises to overturn it all, thank God.

Still, Obama set the precedent. So, should Trump decide to likewise use czars, executive orders, and whatever nefarious tricks Obama and his predecessors used, well, what can you do? That’s how it’s done, now.

The Founders are scoffed at, and our society is more akin to Lord of the Flies. So, enjoy.

The relative strengths of all branches of government have waxed and waned throughout the years. The Executive was strengthened during and after the Civil War, for instance. Or at the turn of the century when TR took over. But it waned in post-Reconstruction, and in the 1910 and 20s.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the filibuster is used during the next administration. But I don’t see the Congress asserting its power, or trying to check the Executive unless there is a power struggle between Führer Trump and congressional leaders. Of course, it’s still way too early to tell. This is just what my gut says.

I’m hoping that a great ressourcement will occur during this presidential term.

I can see Trump and co being more like the Royal Family in England (the current one, that is, not the one that our forefathers revolted against!) instead of an Obamaesque president.

Yeah, of course. Now they’re suddenly interested in balance of power of government. I guess those troop casualty counters in newspapers will also make a triumphant return come Jan. 20, 2017. :rolleyes:

President Obama takes great pride in his background as a community urganizer in the model of “Rules for Radicals”.

However “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinski and dedicated to Lucifer [among others] is in direct conflict with The Constitution.

People advocating violence might be shocked if their own violence bites themselves in the backside … if you look at “home videos” on television you can watch people doing unbelievably self-defeating things and getting seriously injured.

Maybe learning how to pipe in potable drinking water would be a better use of their time and energy. It would be helpful to both Americans and the people of Haiti.

Kentucky is one of the states in which on Tuesday the voters took control away from the Democrats and gave it to the Republicans.

Here is U.S. Senator Rand Paul discussing it at the beginning of this brief clip:

He also discusses how in the first week of the new administration, he predicts that Congress will officially repeal unconstitutional Executive Orders signed by President Obama.

We live in the age of the imperial presidency. Most Americans are happy with the president singularly deciding issues, so long as he decides the way they want it to be decided. I don’t think most people have a principled objection to executive rule. It is certainly the case that the president, as designed by the constitution, had very little power.

Congress has actually abdicated much of their power. This is especially true in making war. There is an incentive to do this. Politicians naturally want to avoid accountability. If they can persuade the voter, rightly or wrongly, that someone else is responsible they protect their position.

I think this is true. An advantage of monarchy is that the monarch is invested in his country. His wealth comes from it. Another is that he tends to look at the long term consequences of acts. He generally wants to preserve the health and wealth of the nation for his family. This can be contrasted with other systems where the political leaders are there only for a term. Such leaders have more of an incentive to make decisions to their short term personal advantage.

This election really showcases that. You have Trump who seems to want a better country, both now and in the future, for his family and family business. On the other side you have Clinton who makes money only off of political power and faces no downside to disastrous decisions for the nation as a whole. Trumps uniqueness as a politician comes from the fact he is a billionaire with a family business. It is his personal wealth, obtained outside the political system, that makes him the politician he is.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit