What the President of the US is & is not allowed to do.

[MarkBR]

Was wandering through things on internet & bumped into an article written for the Cato Institute (not an institute I tend to frequent being very right wing & capitalistic)  However, it can be useful to get balance in one's views so as to be not stuck in an echo chamber with loads of people with similar views.  However, this article I found very interesting.  On what the President of the uS is & is not allowed to do.

https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2025/restoring-representative-government#readings

Wonder what everyone thinks, comments welcome for all sides of the political spectrum.

[KhunLA]

Real simply for me ...

... he can't make or do anything to enhance your life or happiness

... he can't do anything to make you unhappoier than you already allow yourself to be

 

So he's as incidentally to your life, as you are to his.

Live with YOUR choices, you made them 

 

He can't do a whole lot without most of the other 535 corrupt idiots agreeing with him.

 

link didn't work for me, or if it did, I can't be bother sort through that mess

[Yellowtail]

38 minutes ago, MarkBR said:

Was wandering through things on internet & bumped into an article written for the Cato Institute (not an institute I tend to frequent being very right wing & capitalistic)  However, it can be useful to get balance in one's views so as to be not stuck in an echo chamber with loads of people with similar views.  However, this article I found very interesting.  On what the President of the uS is & is not allowed to do.

https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2025/restoring-representative-government#readings

Wonder what everyone thinks, comments welcome for all sides of the political spectrum.

I think it is interesting as well. 

[novacova]

42 minutes ago, MarkBR said:

What the President of the US is & is not allowed to do.

Allowed to exercise powers of the executive branch and annoy any who disagree. Not allowed to dictate powers over the congress and judicial branches and be annoyed by it.

[Yellowtail]

It is interesting that all of a sudden, the CATO Institute is concerned about Executive overreach..

[Will B Good]

44 minutes ago, MarkBR said:

Was wandering through things on internet & bumped into an article written for the Cato Institute (not an institute I tend to frequent being very right wing & capitalistic)  However, it can be useful to get balance in one's views so as to be not stuck in an echo chamber with loads of people with similar views.  However, this article I found very interesting.  On what the President of the uS is & is not allowed to do.

https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2025/restoring-representative-government#readings

Wonder what everyone thinks, comments welcome for all sides of the political spectrum.

 

Is that the wrong link or the wrong title to the thread?

 

This is all about congress slacking off and SCOTUS doing nothing  about it...(or being unable to anything about it).

 

It is basically pointing out that congress is failing to do the job for which the people who elected them.

[Yellowtail]

Just now, Will B Good said:

 

Is that the wrong link or the wrong title to the thread?

 

This is all about congress slacking off and SCOTUS doing nothing  about it...(or being unable to anything about it).

 

It is basically pointing out that congress is failing to do the job for which the people who elected them.

You should read it. 

 

The overreach by the Executive is a result of the Congress slacking off. Tariffs are a good example, as is overregulation. 

[novacova]

4 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

It is basically pointing out that congress is failing to do the job for which the people who elected them.

What else is new? This has been going on for years, is why so many are fed up. Congress is corrupted through and through, folks go in with good intentions to find themselves threatened to go along or move along, then they become insulated within their caucus/club from reality and both sides of the media are culpable. And as for the constituencies, well, they’re just a bunch of mindless suckers chasing carrot sticks that the politicians and media is leading them by.

[save the frogs]

11 hours ago, novacova said:

Congress is corrupted through and through,

 

There is a lot of existing corruption in the entire system, so I am reminded of Shakespeare's quote:

 

sometimes .... not always, but sometimes ... 

 

 

[Lacessit]

What the American government does or does not do is of little consequence to me.

 

AFAIK the only American product I buy is Kindle books on Amazon.

 

Maybe there are services such as Google I use, but I don't pay a cent for them.

 

Washington has 500 Senate members, Congress 535.

 

It has 12000 registered lobbyists, and an estimated 100,000 shadow lobbyists.

 

Draining a swamp like that is well-nigh impossible. Thais are amateurs in comparison.

[theblether]

Americans are getting the Congress they deserve. Voters love twisting the knife which is why the Presidents party normally loses at the mid terms. 

 

Vote for gridlock, get gridlock. 

[ThreeCardMonte]

11 hours ago, Lacessit said:

What the American government does or does not do is of little consequence to me.

 

AFAIK the only American product I buy is Kindle books on Amazon.

 

Maybe there are services such as Google I use, but I don't pay a cent for them.

 

Washington has 500 Senate members, Congress 535.

 

It has 12000 registered lobbyists, and an estimated 100,000 shadow lobbyists.

 

Draining a swamp like that is well-nigh impossible. Thais are amateurs in comparison.

“What the American government does or does not do is of little consequence to me.”

 

So why post here?

[ThreeCardMonte]

By the time the thread runs its course I predict 75/25.

 

Input from 75% of the experts in USA politics.  All non USC.

 

Input from 25% of USC.

 

 

[annotator]

15 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Washington has 500 Senate members, Congress 535.

 

Since each state gets 2 Senators, that must mean that there are 250 states. Looks like someone misplaced 200 of them.

[Felton Jarvis]

16 hours ago, novacova said:

Allowed to exercise powers of the executive branch and annoy any who disagree. Not allowed to dictate powers over the congress and judicial branches and be annoyed by it.

The mentally ill do not see themselves as subject to laws. They consider themselves KING!!!

[annotator]

17 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

You should read it. 

 

The overreach by the Executive is a result of the Congress slacking off. Tariffs are a good example, as is overregulation. 

I don't know if it's overreach or not but the Supreme Court did a great thing by making Presidents immune from prosecution for any alleged crime they commit just so long as they use their executive powers to commit it. Couple that with the power of the pardon and President Trump can do whatever is necessary to restore American Greatness.

[Evil Penevil]

Here's an authoritative list of U.S. presidential powers:

https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/three-branches/what-president-can-do-cannot-do

 

The powers and duties of the President are stated in Article II, Sections 1-4, of the Constitution, mostly in Sections 2-4.      https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#2-1

 

The Founding Fathers were afraid one branch of government could in the future gain dominance over the other two, so they wrote checks and balances into the Constitution.  The checks and balances went beyond the three branches of government and also dealt with the possibility of states with large urban populations gaining power over sparsely populated states based on agriculture or the government unduly restricting the rights and freedoms of citizens.

 

Ever since the Constitution went effect in 1788, the powers of the Federal government have slowly but steadily increased, although there was significant push-back during and after the Presidency of Franklin  D. Roosevelt.  FDR's plan to "pack" the Supreme Court with justices less likely to rule against his administrations' economic measures was defeated and in 1951, an amendment to the Constitution was ratified which limited the term of office of the President to two four-year terms.

[annotator]

4 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

Here's an authoritative list of U.S. presidential powers:

https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/three-branches/what-president-can-do-cannot-do

 

The powers and duties of the President are stated in Article II, Sections 1-4, of the Constitution, mostly in Sections 2-4.      https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#2-1

 

The Founding Fathers were afraid one branch of government could in the future gain dominance over the other two, so they wrote checks and balances into the Constitution.  The checks and balances went beyond the three branches of government and also dealt with the possibility of states with large urban populations gaining power over sparsely populated states based on agriculture or the government unduly restricting the rights and freedoms of citizens.

 

Ever since the Constitution went effect in 1788, the powers of the Federal government have slowly but steadily increased, although there was significant push-back during and after the Presidency of Franklin  D. Roosevelt.  FDR's plan to "pack" the Supreme Court with justices less likely to rule against his administrations' economic measures was defeated and in 1951, an amendment to the Constitution was ratified which limited the term of office of the President to two four-year terms.

You're confusing the issue of the balance of power among the separate branches of the Federal Government with the power of the Federal Government vs State Governments and Localities. One example of a pushback that actually does limit the power of the Federal Govt, although maybe not in a good way, was a Supreme Court decision that ruled that State or local employees, like the Police for example, can't be ordered to cooperate with Federal law enforcement. As is currently the case with ICE and sanctuary cities.

[Evil Penevil]

18 minutes ago, annotator said:

You're confusing the issue of the balance of power among the separate branches of the Federal Government with the power of the Federal Government vs State Governments and Localities. One example of a pushback that actually does limit the power of the Federal Govt, although maybe not in a good way, was a Supreme Court decision that ruled that State or local employees, like the Police for example, can't be ordered to cooperate with Federal law enforcement. As is currently the case with ICE and sanctuary cities.

 

I'm not confusing them, just noting  the Founding Fathers intended the concept of checks and balances to extend beyond the three branches of government.  That's why each state elects two senators regardless of population but the number of Congressional representatives is based on population.  That's also why the winner in presidential elections is determined by the Electoral College and not the popular vote. 

And why city cops or local "parking enforcement agents"  write parking tickets rather than Federal marshals.  Governmental powers not explicitly given to the Federal government in the Constitution were reserved for the states.  The goal was to "check" the power of the large populous states to dominate smaller states.

[annotator]

2 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

I'm not confusing them, just noting  the Founding Fathers intended the concept of checks and balances to extend beyond the three branches of government.  That's why each state elects two senators regardless of population but the number of Congressional representatives is based on population.  That's also why the winner in presidential elections is determined by the Electoral College and not the popular vote. 

And why city cops or local "parking enforcement agents"  write parking tickets rather than Federal marshals.  Governmental powers not explicitly given to the Federal government in the Constitution were reserved for the states.  The goal was to "check" the power of the large populous states to dominate smaller states.

"Ever since the Constitution went effect in 1788, the powers of the Federal government have slowly but steadily increased, although there was significant push-back during and after the Presidency of Franklin  D. Roosevelt.  FDR's plan to "pack" the Supreme Court with justices less likely to rule against his administrations' economic measures was defeated and in 1951, an amendment to the Constitution was ratified which limited the term of office of the President to two four-year terms."

Not examples of pushbacks against federal power. Rather pushbacks against the Presidency vis a vis the 2 other branches of government.