- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
The president can not make treaties, but they can make executive agreements which are shortcuts to treaties. They do not need congressional approval for this. And yes, members of congress can advise against these, but if an agreement is made that benefits both countries, the other country will likely ignore congress's advise. And regarding your last sentence, the President can chose to appoint new members to these agencies. Eventually, one of them is bound to be approved by congress.
The president can create executive orders which are similar to laws, but no congressional approval is needed, making the enforcement process faster. And yes, congress CAN override a veto, but only by a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House. However, this occurrence is unlikely since over 1,484 bills have been vetoed and only 106 have been overridden. If the veto is overridden, the President can reinterpret the meaning of the law by writing an essay explaining its meaning. This is called a signing statement.
This is true, but the impeachment only can go through if there is significant evidence that the president is doing wrong. Also, the impeachment is a trial, not necessarily a removal from office. Two-thirds of Congress must vote for impeachment, making this difficult to occur due to lack of agreement (gridlock). People will want their party to hold power, so they may do what is best for the promotion of their party instead what is best for the country as a whole.
FOR THE PRESIDENT:
The President has more wartime powers than congress. The president can deploy troops without congressional approval for up to 90 days and is the Commander in Chief, making him in charge of the armed forces. The president can also create executive agreements with other countries.
FOR THE PRESIDENT:
The President can create executive orders,which are recorded in the Federal Register and considered binding. Because of this, the President can decide what legislation will be enforced. Also, In the instance of an emergency, the President can quickly make a change in order. In congress, the process would take much longer for something to be enforced. An example of this would be in 1948, Truman issued an executive order desegregating the nation’s armed forces. If this were to be voted on by congress in that era, it would have been unlikely for a majority to vote in favor of desegregation. Therefore, the ability for the president to create executive orders is important.
FOR THE PRESIDENT: The President can veto bills from congress according to Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, allowing the president to have more power. Though Congress can go through the work of making a reasonable bill, it does not have to be passed as a law unless the president signs it. The veto can be overridden only by a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House, which is difficult to do. If this occurs, the bill becomes law over the President's objections. However, the President can reinterpret the meaning of the law by writing an essay explaining its meaning. The President can also pocket veto, which is an absolute veto that congress can not override. All the President has to do is not sign the bill until it is too late for it to be dealt with during the legislative session. The veto becomes effective when the President does not sign a bill after Congress has adjourned and is unable to override the veto.
During the war, those militias were unified. We were lucky that we won. It would still be best if everyone had the same supplies and regulations, for a nation divided can not stand. Do not forget about the supply shortages our troops did face during the war. It was unorganized.
People would still have their inalienable rights. If at any point things were seen as unjust, the Power of The Purse could be used to stop funding. And, overall, a standing army would be better funded as seen in Article 1, Section 8. Better training would be provided, and there would be more regulation. If anything, it is safer for those in the army.
Inalienable rights would NOT be taken with a standing army. IF, for whatever reason, the army were tyrannical, the citizens would be able to elect a new representative in Congress (Article 1, Federalist 8). This representative would be able to use the Power of Purse to defund it. The people would still have control.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!