The (radical) Conservative plan to takeover the country

It’s not how I view it, it’s how the two different voters of Trump and Biden view it. You have the poll. In other words you have each side thinking the other side is out to destroy this nation. Not surprising considering both shrinking major parties are made up of ideologues. All I gave you is how each side looks at the other. Each side views of the other are written in stone. I often find it very sad that both sides never want to take all of America views into consideration, just their own. That in my judgement is what caused us to get where we are. Then you have the great unwashed middle, caught in-between that for the most part just want to throw up their arms in disgust.

 

No, but that wasn’t the point. The idea was to let folks know what all of America was thinking. In this case what each major party side views the other side. The point is both sides think the other is out to destroy this nation. Then you have those caught in the middle which the article didn’t address. It’s like this upcoming presidential election in which most Americans don’t want neither major party candidate. What is happening is Republicans think Democrats are out to destroy this nation, democrats think republicans are out to destroy the country. Those caught in the middle are beginning to think both major parties are out to destroy this country. This is why both major parties are shrinking while independents are rising. From 30% in 2006 to 45% today if Gallup and Pew Research are to be believed.


61% of all Americans have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party, 60% of all Americans rate the Democratic Party unfavorably. 28% of all Americans have a negative view of both major parties which includes 46% of independents.


https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/the-republican-and-democratic-parties/


It wasn’t always this this way. This is entirely new to the last couple of decades. We’ve become a nation where only Democrats like democrats, republicans like republican and independents dislike both to where they are think or at least beginning to think our two major parties are the problem.

 

Off topic.

This thread is not about opinion polls of how each side views the other as a threat to the nation. It is not about what divides us. That is a good subject, but one for another thread. Perhaps you should start a thread on it, cite some articles that suggest it, polls, and so forth.

 

LOL, you guys are too much. This entire fiasco was started by Matt Gaetz and the Repubs who sided with the Democrats. It is truly the height of blatant ignorance to spin this as the Democrats' fault. Repubs are eating their own, and the rubes blow whatever hot air their pundits dream up.

 

The unitary executive policy is a deliberate precept written into the Constitution, as your first paragraph implies. Kt was not a throw away decision of the frameers but had more than incidental debate over whether there should be joint executive heads (as some colonies (states) had), what the term should be, how the head(s) should be appointed/elected, etc. The singular head was easily confirmed because of the obvious ineffectiveness of shared executive power and the violation of the well-known military precept of unity of command.

The critics argument seems a red herring. Why could congress exercise its balance of power any better if there were three co-equal presidents instead of one? Congress has the sole authority only to pass legislation. I don't think they have the constitutional authority to appoint executive officers not beholding to the president, although they do or try to from time to time.

 

The argument that the unitary executive theory should grant the President more power over the government than he currently possesses is a contentious one. While the Constitution does establish a single executive in the form of the President, it does not explicitly define the extent of this executive power.

The Founding Fathers designed a system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. This includes the executive branch. The idea behind this system was to create a balance of power among the three branches - legislative, executive, and judicial - to ensure that no single entity could dominate the others.

Expanding the President’s power could disrupt this delicate balance. It could potentially lead to an autocratic system where the President has unchecked authority. This would be contrary to the democratic principles upon which the United States was founded.

Moreover, history has shown that an excessive concentration of power in one individual or institution can lead to abuses and corruption. Therefore, it’s crucial to maintain checks and balances to safeguard democracy.

In conclusion, while the unitary executive theory does advocate for a strong executive, it’s essential to interpret and apply it in a manner that respects the principles of checks and balances and separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

 

I agree that we do not need any laws that increases presidential power and authority. But this has nothing to do with unity executive other than may e it sounds like some have hijacked the term for their own agenda. I think the balance of power established by the framers works very well except, thinking the judicial branch was a weak sister, they put in virtually no checks on it. The president's power is limited by the fact that he can generate no new legislation, ignoring the fact the in reality they often do anyway, often abetted by the Supreme Court and Congress itself. While he is sole commander in chief of the military he cannot declare war (whatever that means).

I think we are in agreement. Other than SCOTUS the balance of power works pretty well (though not perfectly), and there certainly should not be any effort to increase presidential power.

 

TLDR

That the President heads the Executive Branch isn't 'unconstitutional' it's constitutional. You're idiot birdbrained source here must have gotten her law degree out of a cracker jack box.

Article II describes the powers of the President. The very first line shows you that your source is either a fool, or hopes you are:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.​

What your clown calls "unitary' theory is simply the proper recognition of The Vesting Clause.

'In the 1926 case of Myers v. United States, the United States Supreme Court recognized that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body. The Court also wrote:'

'The ordinary duties of officers prescribed by statute come under the general administrative control of the President by virtue of the general grant to him of the executive power, and he may properly supervise and guide their construction of the statutes under which they act in order to secure that unitary and uniform execution of the laws which article 2 of the Constitution evidently contemplated in vesting general executive power in the President alone.'​

As the only individual exercising Executive Power who stands before the voters, Executive Power is vested into the President, alone. Folks like the clown you are using as a source, hate self-government and imagine that there is some form of Federal Power not derived from We The People, and there is none.

Oh, she has tattoos? Why didn't you lead with this. I take it all back, if she has tattoos, obviously she's a genius and we all just kneel in praise and burn incense to her every utterance.



Gee, you left out the astrology, too? Next you'll be telling us that you didn't check any of this for accuracy.

What about 2 Spirit. I think you left some letters out, there.

There's a shock.

No President has been stopped by the Courts for attempting unconstitutional and illegal acts, like Bribed Joe, but not a peep out of you!

Looks like you have noticed the polls!

If the President is exercising power derived from Congressional Acts, of course the Congress can shape the exercise of it. But when the President is exercising Article II power the Congress could still intervene using the power of impeachment. Your idiot source just figured this out? Everyone with at least a double digit IQ and the ability to read the Constitution understands this.

Let me guess. Your "genius" here is a big fan of medical conversion therapy for children who are simply LGB.

Oh, like in the Declaration of Independence?

That's what teaches university students to cheer the rape and slaughter of Jews, for the "crime" of being Jewish in Israel?

Wait, I thought we already covered that. We get it. Your tattooed hack is political hack and this is all about the upcoming election, which has her britches in a twist because the GOP is so far ahead of last cycle.

You don't say!

 

The hell you say. Less than half the time the agencies do beneficial things. Most of their actions are disruptive, debilitating, and detremental. Their problem stems from Congress turning over legislative authority to tons of unelected and unfireable power hungry bureaucrats. Congress essentially made the EPA prosecutor, judge and jury for example, and SCOTUS blindly abets. The president sometimes fights it, sometimes relishes in it.