- 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.
Yes Congress can amend the Constitution but only 17 amendments have been added with the over 11,000 proposals. Also in the scenario, the states are not mentioned at all with the "rule change." Amendments need a 3/4 majority from all of the states as well so the power is not solely vested in the federal legislature branch. The rules can change but not as often as if the power was as important as it is being argued to be.
The whole purpose of the Presidency is to enforce the laws passed by Congress in a formal setting. If the president does not want to enforce a law, they do not have to enforce it. Prime example would be the aforementioned War Powers Act which the president views as unconstitutional and does not enforce it. This can be done with any legislation, with a lack of enforcement it is only a piece of paper.
The War Powers Act is seen as unconstitutional in the president's eyes basically ignoring the law completely. The president executes laws and enforces them so if they were to disagree a law, they do not have to enforce it. Simply, a president does not have to enforce the laws essentially wiping the legislative clean.
Executive orders are a strong power used often in the time of a divided government. They have become more powerful since division becomes more prevalent. These orders hold the same enforcement power as any bill passed in Congress; however, they can become void when the next president assumes the presidency. The orders are becoming increasingly more effective for a short time use often used by presidents to fulfill their campaign promises. They are terrible for a long term change. This does not mean that the idea behind the order could not be turned into a law that becomes permanent; there just needs to be enough public support for the bill. This is how the executive branch has grown so powerful, creating change for 4 to 8 years then leaving office with their orders never to be seen again.
When the mention of killing agencies is brought, there are many unspoken responsibilities held by the federal agencies that go unnoticed by the general public or candidates who are advocating for the cutting of agencies like the Department of Energy. The Power of the Purse is talking about taxing bills starting exclusively in the House of Representatives and
a slight mention of how budgets are made;however, the federal budget is a co-effort from the President and Congress. The president presents a budget plan to Congress which in turn they can ratify through both houses and require the president's approval.
In Nixon's case, there was such a public disdain towards him that even his own party decided to turn against him. Most impeachments require that defendant's party turn against them in order to go through with the trial and charges. Like before, this is going to become less likely within a divided government and as government officials become more partisan. So to make the argument that impeachment is open to executive officials without the turning of their party is a false one.
The power to veto any legislation passed through Congress. There are two types of vetoes that the president holds, pocket vetoes and vetoes. Pocket Vetoes are used when the President refuses to sign a bill for 10 days and the bill dies on his desk. Vetoes are more commonly used and are a more formal denial of that proposed legislation. Congress has the power to override a veto with a 2/3 majority in both chambers; however, this is becoming less and less likely with a divided government, political parties controlling one part of the government while the other controls another. Most overridden vetoes occurred with a less divided government. Only 11% of vetoes have been overridden. If this power is so important, why has it not been used more?
The basic human rights would be reserved in the structure of the government setup by the Constitution. Federalist believed that listing out the rights would limit them. This very philosophy is why the Constitution goes into so much detail when describing the powers of the federal government so that if they do something out of line the people can call them out on it. Another fact remains, that the list of their powers limited the government but also allowed for any rights not listed are specifically to be granted to the people and state government. Out of 11,000 amendments proposed only 17 have been added since 130 years ago showing that it is near impossible to add new rights to the Constitution.
If the federal government lacked taxing power, they could not fund programs like Social Security, Federal Armies, Infrastructure Construction, etc. You would not have roads to drive on or sidewalks to walk on if the government had no taxing power. Our tax system that the Federalist founded allowed the states democratically elected representatives to decide on the method of tax collection.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!