1165
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] xJREB@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago

But who would lead the executive branch then and how would you ensure that they are reasonably separated from the legislative branch?

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

I would suggest that abolishing it is impractical, however it needs to be reigned in a lot. There are a few circumstances that call for the decisiveness of a strong singular authority, but not many. These "executive orders" have been nuts and shouldn't be such a routine thing.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 2 points 21 hours ago

There would be no independent executive branch, the very concept inevitably endangers democratic systems by creating a person with a lot of power who inherently is going to view any disagreement of course of action from the people's representatives as an obstacle to be gotten around.

Or have you missed all the headlines about the over reliance reliance on executive orders over the past decade and change? Not to mention how the fiat veto was never intended but instead the result of Andrew Jackson just deciding he didn't have to give congress a reason why their laws were being treated with the same energy as shit that was at a minimum arguably unconstitutional up to that point.

The independent executive is a leach that parasitically sucks power away from the elected representatives of the people, and imposes "checks" on their powers that not only are entirely unneeded, but actively endanger the health of the republic.

Everywhere that's tried american style democracy since the US formed has collapsed in dramatic fashion, everywhere else that's gone with a parliamentary system has at worst had periods of endangerment, mostly caused by a parliamentary leader trying to get the powers of an american style president, gestures wildly at Orban and Erdogan

[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 2 points 12 hours ago

The executive isn't supposed to be wielding power unilaterally. What the president does now, with executive orders and signing statements and line-item veto, is massive overreach.

In a properly functioning democracy, the president delegates authority over most everything to trusted advisors (i.e. head of FCC, or DEA, or what have you) who are placed in that position because they have demonstrated both great political/leadership skills, and appropriate knowledge of the area they are governing. The president still has the final say-so in the form of veto power, but that's pretty much it.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 1 points 10 hours ago

Yeah, and that's not needed when the senate can perform that role just as well and also be a more functioning version of itself for it.

There is no need for a singular focalpoint of elected power.

this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
1165 points (99.2% liked)

Political Memes

5290 readers
2722 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS