What would be the advantages and disadvantages to Congress having more power than the President?

The danger of any one part of the federal government having more power than another is abuse, If one will notice the issues we can have as the supreme court addresses issues using less than constitutional basis.

I can't really see any advantages... there are certain things that should not be run via committee, and making the decisions regarding powers granted to the President are among them.

Please keep in mind that the President's job is the day-to-day running of government. That means, essentially, that the President needs to be able to make quick decisions about items that are critical. This includes everything from running wars to emergency aid for hurricane relief. Decisions of that magnitute can not be made by 535 members of Congress, their numerous aids, and their various committees. Decision-making by committee is not an option in most situations.

That is why Congress is given the role of legislating new laws... which tell the executive branch (the President) how to act in the making of those decisions. Congress decides on the parameters within which officials may act, but the President acts within those parameters. And if they don't like what the President is doing, they have the option of defunding whatever they don't like... they have the power of the purse.

On the other hand, if the President believes that Congress is making laws that hinder the President from doing his job, or are overstepping their Constitutional bounderies, the President has the ability to veto any bill that reaches his desk. And Congress has the ability to override such a veto with a supermajority.

What would have happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katerina if Congress were the ones making the decisions?

Chances are that Congress would have spent a week negotiating a bi-partisan plan of action, another week debating it on the floor of Congress, and then voting on it... and MAYBE passing it. No matter how bad you may believe the response to Katerina was, it didn't take TWO WEEKS to get aid into Louisiana.

Furthermore, if Congress had more power than the President, we would see pork spending go out of control, as each Senator or Representative tries to get money for his state/municipality added to any bill that he votes for. With no President to veto such pork barrel spending, taxes would skyrocket in order to fund these expenditures.

The Soviets tried rule by committee and it was a complete failure. I think that giving Congress more power than the President would be the same mistake. And apparently the Founding Fathers agreed.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phyllis46

What would be the advantages and disadvantages to Congress having more power than the President?

---

Congress does have more power than the President and the advantage is ‘we the people rule.’ If the President had more power than Congress we would have a Dictator running the government.

Where in the world did you get that question?:confused:

DC,

I'm not sure that I agree that Congress has more power than the President. I believe they have DIFFERENT powers and different duties and responsibilities. But neither one is MORE powerful than the other. THat is the point of the checks-and-balances system... to keep either brach from becoming more powerful than the other.

Elliot

Believe what you want; in the end the facts are that congress can fire the President but the President cannot fire a member of congress. That sounds more powerful to me.:)

How about this.

The President controls the military and can overthow Congress.

He also has the power to declare a State of Emergency and eliminate the Right of Habeas Corpus for the duration of said emergency, as Lincoln did during the Civil War. If I remember correctly, Lincoln actually jailed members of Congress during the Civil War when they stood in the way of his running the war.

Now which one is more powerful? Does firing the President really matter if he can used the military against Congress and jail them at will without trial?

We can continue this argument all day long if we wanted to. In the end, neither branch can make a move against the other without the other acting to stop them via their inherent check-and-balance powers.

Elliot

Elliot I have no idea what motivated you to reach into “Hollywood” for a scenario where the President is fired and remains Commander and Chief; but whatever the case, Congress has the last word, that's what makes America the kind of Democracy it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Elliot I have no idea what motivated you to reach into “Hollywood” for a scenario where the President is fired and remains Commander and Chief; but whatever the case, Congress has the last word, that’s what makes America the kind of Democracy it is.

---

My point, DC, is that Congress DOESN'T have the last word.

Neither does the President.

Lincoln jailed members of Congress who disagreed with his war policy. Clearly Congress didn't have more power than the president.

And the President cannot do anything without funding, so he needs Congress to fund his policies.

BOTH maintain an equal footing, and neither has "the last word". They are co-equal branches of government. That is how the system was designed.

Elliot