Michael Jackson once sang, "I'm talking 'bout the man in the mirror; I'm asking him to change his ways." I doubt he was talking about Congress, but our legislative branch could learn a few things from the King of Pop to deal with the King of the United States. What's your take?
The Man in the Mirror
For further reference, check out the following article as well:
The President's Power Grab
Even if it speeds up decision-making in the government, constantly deferring power to the President hurts separation of powers, making it easier for the executive branch to take over. Besides, the President already has his say in legislation through his ability to veto. I think Presidents should make an effort to maintain separation of powers like it written in the Constitution. But, it is also Congress' job to write proper legislation. So, I think both branches of government are at fault in this case.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Stewart, Period 2
I do believe that Congress should stop slacking and actually check the executive branch. If they do not then what was the Constitution for, a show piece? Really I understand that the president does have power in most places that Congress doesn't have authority over, but having one person in charge of the entirety of the government, making brash choices, defying Congress, and ultimately overstepping it's boundaries; the executive branch is left to run amok. That is why the should be more checks and balances, and Congress really should take on the responsibility of being a part of the nation that must be lead by responsible people.
ReplyDeleteAlexia Tejeda
P.3
I believe that giving the President this much power takes away from the initial goal of Separation of Powers. There are no checks and balances at this point due to the President be able to carry out actions that can be deemed as unconstitutional. For example, the President cannot approve treaties, Congress only can. But the President can make agreements and Congress can doing nothing about. This power can go the wrong way if used improperly, especially with corruption being a huge possible factor. In fact, I personally believe that our government must need some more restrictions when involving forms of checks and balances.
ReplyDeleteGregory James Pullon Jr.
Period 5
It seems that separation of powers is becoming so separate it may become justified under one branch. With Congress not checking the president they fail to uphold their duty within the Constitution. The President also should be at fault that he is suppose to uphold the law of the land, and using his inherent powers for the greater benefit of his agenda is a huge loophole that goes against what the Founding Fathers wanted.
ReplyDeleteThe executive branch has gone beyond the powers the Constitution gives it and has taken on responsibilities that are rightfully those of Congress. Congress does, in my opinion, have to take its place as the most powerful branch in our government. However, I believe the problem with Congress taking on these responsibilities again is how methodical Congress can be in taking action and coming to conclusions. An example of this is President Obama's decision to waive the individual mandate portion of Obamacare when it was causing policies to be cancelled. Such an action needs to be made quickly and swiftly to prevent further harm to the people. Congress is simply incapable of making such decisions in this manner as well as a single person in the president can. Yes the president has crossed his given powers, but giving them back to Congress may very well be ineffective and harmful to the American people.
ReplyDeleteEmmanuel Mintah, P. 3
The article leaves one wondering as to why the president’s role in American government has grown so much. While it is clear that the president is seeking the utmost amount of power and influence to make his mark on the nation, it is rather strange that congress feels no need to take action against this undemocratic trend. As legislators one would assume that they have a thorough understanding of the constitution, so if ignorance is not the culprit, than what is? Congress’ passive nature appears to be a sign of not caring. This issue goes beyond party, it seems as though Congress is afraid of going against the president or worse yet having to make a controversial decision. It seems congress does not want to take responsibility and by them avoiding controversy (arguing with president) they retain a good position with the people and party (esp. if in president’s party). In sum, this trend proves to be especially disappointing as national leaders not only fail to enforce the rules that this country was built, but do it in an attempt to scapegoat the president for all of America’s problems. Robert Snyder P. 2
ReplyDeleteIt could be that a particular Congress controlled by one faction might cede power to the sitting president of the same faction. Then, once this precedent is set, it is easier to cede a little more power the next time around.
DeleteI think that the legislative branch should most definitely reassert control. The president has more than enough power and the system that we have lived in for more than 200 years has always safe guarded our freedoms and congress needs to reassert their power. But the courts are also to blame they should declare acts of the president unconstitutional as they do laws. Both branches must work together to return the power of the presidency to what the framers intended.
ReplyDeleteKyle Wurtz
Period 5
I think that more than anything, this article points out that the president has continued to gain power over the years because Congress has given it to him. The legislative branch writes vague laws, giving the president the power of interpreting the law and how to enforce it, instead of making specific laws that and straight forward and easily interpreted. I think that because of this, our separation of powers that was once equal is now tilted greatly in the favor of the Executive branch. Congress needs to stop being lazy and start accepting the responsibilities that the Constitution laid out for them instead of putting them off onto the president.
ReplyDeleteClaire Williams
period 3
I agree with the author of this article that Congress needs to get back up and take on their constitutional duties instead of slacking. I wonder why the president has gained more power throughout the years without being constitutionality checked by anyone. If the president keeps taking on more responsibilities that aren't his and the Congress keeps ignoring their responsibilities, the Constitution will become meaningless and so will the idea of democracy.
ReplyDeleteNow a days we give the president so much power that it is taking powers that were initially for Congress. I thought the reason we created a checks and balances system is so that one branch of government wouldn't be overpowering one another. It's either the fault of the Congress for not doing their job or maybe it s only the presidents ego that makes him believe he can do certain things without Congress. For example Trump bombing Syria...Did he even run it through Congress? So I believe that the legislative branch should reread the Constitution and reestablish control within the government.
ReplyDeleteMirna Munoz Period 5
I believe that the President should be kept in check by the other two branches. No one branch should have all the power, if the executive branch has all the power and can bypass Congress why does Congress even exist. This really worries me because the House of Representatives is meant to represent the people so if this abuse of power continues than the people will ultimately be forgotten in decisions that affect them. The seperation of powers also gives minority groups a chance to stop bills at multiple points and I believe that this is a power that should not be taken away.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that more is getting done now that the president doesn't have to fight congress on every bill he wants passed it's leading us down a dark path and I agree with the author that it will have been our fault as we made no move to stop it. lieve that the President should be kept in check by the other two branches. No one branch should have all the power, if the executive branch has all the power and can bypass Congress why does Congress even exist. This really worries me because the House of Representatives is meant to represent the people so if this abuse of power continues than the people will ultimately be forgotten in decisions that affect them. The seperation of powers also gives minority groups a chance to stop bills at multiple points and I believe that this is a power that should not be taken away.
While I agree that more is getting done now that the president doesn't have to fight congress on every bill he wants passed it's leading us down a dark path and I agree with the author that it will have been our fault as we made no move to stop it.
Andrea Campos Period 5
Congress is being too lenient on the powers of the president and I do not see why. They should do their jobs of checking the president's power and enforcing the ideal set forth by the United States that is separation of powers. Too much power, especially over issues such as immigration, sets a mal precedence and weakens Congress's power. I do not see why Congress thinks it is okay to abandon such an important factor of its purpose and why they would not fix this issue as soon as possible.
ReplyDeleteLainey Gerber
period 5
In the beginning it was supposed to be Congress who made the laws, President who enforces it, and Supreme Court who interprets it; however in this day and age the tables are turning. In the article a member of SCOTUS stated that these changes from Congress handing over unlimited power to our President has happened slowly and periodically overtime, unfortunately we haven’t caught on until now. As of lately our Congress has been producing “vague” laws which are given over to the president to almost interpret, execute, and deliver the law based on his terms and his terms alone. The reason for Congress’s celibate attitude towards this change could be one of many reasons; however I believe it could be the tendency for people to rest all the blame of bad policy and bad economy on the presidents shoulders rather than the branch where these laws were designed to come from and so Congress can intern say that it was the Executive branch who enforced to mean this instead of that. I do think it is wise, after reading this article, to get Congress men who will take back their enumerated power and work alongside the president just as it was intended to be. Also how did Institute of Medicine determine a portion of the Affordable cares act without Congress?
ReplyDeleteJocelyn Ayers P:3
It could be that Congress wants to shift blame to sitting presidents, but there are other practical reasons for writing vague laws. For one, Congressmen are not experts; but the bureaucrats in the executive branch theoretically are. So Congress naturally defers to the experts. Secondly, Congress passes vague laws because if they get too specific, they might not be able to get enough votes to pass the bill. And third, Congress (like our Framers) cannot think of every eventuality so they need to keep the laws somewhat vague so that future presidents can execute the law amid changing cirmcumstances.
DeleteThis really bugs me. If congress continues to pass vague bills and leave it to the president to interpret at his will, the least they can do is check him. What else are they doing over there in D.C.? Catching up on netflix shows? Reading Trumps tweets? If they aren't following up on the laws they produce, why should they even exist? However, I do believe that some matters require immediate action by the president. If our country is at risk, I don't want congress to meet and bicker for hours about what to do while our country falls to shambles. On all other matters, the legislative branch must take a stand and establish their voice, even if it's against presidential orders. They're supposed to represent the people and if they aren't standing up for us, then who will?
ReplyDeleteNoah Rico
Period 5
It appears as though Congress has lost its role as "representative of the people." Maybe it's because of the district system or incumbency. But with such low approval ratings, the people tend to rally around the president even though he can't constitutionally carry out policy.
DeleteIn this article, it clearly points out that the president has still continued to gain a lot of power over the years because Congress has allowed it to happen and has given it to him. They should instead do their jobs of checking the presidents powers and enforcing the ideals of separation of powers. This is Congress's fault for continuing to let this happen. If they keep ignoring their responsibilities like stated in this article, there would be no point in having a constitution.
ReplyDeleteClay Reyes
p.2
To me it seems that the executive branch is beginning to have to too much power. If the framers of the constitution wanted the president to have all this power they would have put it in the constitution. The framers instead created a constitution where powers would be divided up so no one branch would have control. Many of the laws Obama wanted to enact were good ones but none that seemed like they needed to be passed immediately. Congress needs to be added back into this process. Yes it is tempting when you have the power to just try to make everything go your way but I think it's time to just take a step back and see how it will effect us in the long run. It may be tough trying to get things done with congress but I think it's for the greater good.
ReplyDeleteRebecca Platero
Period 2
I feel Congress is being walked all over by the Presidents, however, they are making it easy to do so. With the passing of vague laws, there is no other choice for the President but to interpret them in his own way. The point of Congress was to check the Executive Branch, not work below it. In some cases though, the President should be able to act without the approval of Congress. However, in more ways than one, the President should be able to be checked by Congress whenever they please.
ReplyDeleteJurnee Joseph P. 5
With each passing presidential years, POTUS has been gaining power, soon enough surpassing Congress. The point of a decentralized gov. is to separate power and allow a check on such power, however, with so many loopholes our president has been able to go around the rules built to maintain balance of power. For example, POTUS has the power to make treaties only with the approval of Congress, but with implied power of Executive Agreements, he now has a way to exclude any opinion of Congress. The Framers built this system to ensure any decisions were to be made between 2 branches, but fast forward to 2017, the Executive Branch has individualized itself and chooses to act solo. Such power makes you wonder how much of what they choose to do is constitutional. At this point, we need Congress to put its foot down and intervene and try to recover from how they were originally supposed to work.
ReplyDeleteDorian Cardoza, Per. 5
Congress being too lenient over the years has led to a long chain of presidents who abuse their executive power. I want to see this change so that it can be more fair and constitutional. However, I can also see the changes hurting us in a way where we don't get as much done as we could because of conflicting ideas between the president and congress. But the point of the change should be so that the executive branch doesn't have such influential informal powers where they do whatever they please on matters like executive agreements and war-making. I don't want us to stray so far from the Constitution that it becomes nearly pointless, so I think congress should step up more instead of just sitting back.
ReplyDelete-Tiffany Inouye P.3
Congress is setting itself up for failure by writing laws that are vaguely written. The president has the power to enforce this law in the way he interprets it, so this gives the president the upper hand of how the law affects its people. Congress should check the president when this happens for example when congress didn't want to pass the Dream Act of 2011 but the president put off deportation if immigrants which congress wanted. This is a good example of how much we need to check and balance our government. Like the article says for our future government to prosper we need that passes laws and a president that enforces them and a supreme court to interpret them.
ReplyDeleteCongress should be at fault here since they were too vague on their laws and the President, who took advantage and found loopholes in avoiding the laws, should not be blamed for the laws that Congress has passed. Congress needs stop blaming others for taking a different interpretation of the law. Instead, they should interpret the law more specifically so that President won’t be able to take advantage of the law. For example, thinking of every possible step through and breaking it down into specific details so that the President can’t misinterpret Congress’ intention. Another way to prevent this is by controlling the President's’ funding so that he would have to follow the law. If this trend of vague laws continue Congress will eventually seem pointless since the President will continue to take advantage of them. The executive branch will continue to rise in power leaving Congress in the dust, which is not the intention.
ReplyDeleteJosette Yasay Period 2
The thing that I don't understand is why Congress is letting itself be walked all over on by the president? Everyone enjoys a bit of power yet Congress is willingly giving it away. Do the Congressmen/women not realize that they are giving up their power by not acting and not checking the president? I feel like the implied powers of the president have become over stretched or more loopholes have been found that "justify" the president's increase in power but not enough people are giving this issue any attention to make any changes.
ReplyDeletep.3
See my post above . . .
DeleteI agree that Congress needs to step up and regain its power, however I'm confused as to why they allow this to happen. It's easy to assume that they are lazy, but based on the reading we know that Congress equally fears and has confidence in itself when deciding whether or not to go against the President's wishes. I understand this fact and get the idea of loopholes being used to the POTUS's advantage, but is there something else that is ultimately stopping Congress from taking action?
ReplyDeleteLyndsey Chu, P2
I asked myself the same question you did at the end!
DeleteMadison Rhind
Congress is playing games you want the president to act a certain way then let he or she know. you can't just leave it up for interpretation and then be nonchalant about the unconstitutional acts or semi mad. like seriously do something. Congress needs to stand up but we also don't have time to wait for every single thing to talked about some things need an immediate response. With that said i feel there should be a revision amongst the constitution between all the branches to figure out what should be the limits on this or what type of situations must be going on for this response to be immediate. Also with all that off my chest I do not agree with what trump did bombing an airport or any land other than our own open U.S. soil is an act of war and in that case it should have went to congress especially since there was no emanate danger.
ReplyDeleteDiante Lowe
P.3
The title of the LA Times article implies that Obama has been the only president to "overreach" on his executive powers. When in fact this has been a trend in the past few presidents because Congress decides not to intervene. The Constitution states that there should be a check on the executive power, made by the legislative branch. But without Congress making the checks on the president's power, the purpose of Article two Section two Clause two of the Constitution becomes pointless. The Constitution is the foundation for the American government and if Congress consistently deviates from it, the purpose diminishes substantially. Although the Congress does not have to scrutinize and approve every single act that the president does; for example, taking action when America faces an imminent threat, both houses should follow the framework of the Constitution to keep the country running as the Framers intended it to.
ReplyDeleteMadison Rhind
p.3
It appears that this evolution of "increasing" executive power has existed through several terms. This reminds me of the whole objective to the children's story, "If you give a mouse a cookie." Congress has allowed presidents to get away with manipulating their laws and statues in order to benefit their acts. Therefore, after testing their boundaries and they seemingly have none, they are going to take advantage of this free space given to them. Ways that this could be prevented are by not being so vague on the terminology of their set laws. If they want something done a certain way they just have to be straightforward about it instead of beating around the bush, short and sweet allows less room for intentional misinterpretation. If that's not the case, then the other way to hold these presidents accountable for their actions is to demand repercussions. Congress should not be afraid to intervene because technically, due to separation of powers & checks and balances, there is no branch higher than the other. Also, from my understanding of the reading, they should not fear going against the president if that's what they're worried about. There's not much a president is able to do to affect the careers of congressmen and women.
ReplyDelete(Charlize Villamin-De Leon, Per. 2)
Nice children's book reference!
DeleteI believe that Congress needs to step up and check the executive branch so that the president is not able to make decisions without Congress. Sure, in times of absolute need the "Commander in Chief" can make an unilateral decision due to a necessity for an instant action. However, if a president is able to do whatever he/she wants then that will be completely the opposite of what the Framers wanted and it will suggest that the constitution is just some piece of paper. I am confused in the fact that how Congress has allowed this to happen and when did the president acquire such power. The vagueness in the laws by Congress has allowed the president to bypass them and find loopholes that benefit them.
ReplyDeleteJames Lee
Per.3
The president's power should most definitely not have grown so much and Congress should not be allowing the president sole responsibility of implementing and enforcing a law. I do not know how the president was able to even gain so much control, like, if you were able to be a part of the legislative branch wouldn't they want to be able to control certain things? This could potentially be dangerous if not enough people are paying attention to what the president is doing with such powers. The Congress should make laws that are less vague and gain control back from the president.
ReplyDeleteRyan Van Balen P.5
Congress needs to stop slacking off and get itself together because giving the President too much power violates the Constitution and leaving no purpose for the separation of powers. No branch should ever overlap each other; especially the executive branch because having the President alone with so much power could resemble a dictator which the framers were so fearful of. Also, shouldn’t check and balances play a huge role in our government? Why are we allowing the President to do this? Even though things are getting done a lot faster because the President “can bypass Congress” is going against our country’s democracy. Thus, two branches should keep in check of the executive branch to be cautious and fair than to be rash can reckless.
ReplyDeleteAmanda Lor
Period 5
While I definitely agree that the separation of powers is important, and that the trend toward increasing executive branch authority over legislation should be checked, it is also important to realize that presidents are never given free reign over the shaping of legislation. This is especially noticeable when the majority in Congress is of a different party than the president. Often times when this occurs, it is very difficult for legislation to pass both branches, and the president is certainly checked in his attempts at movement in any direction.
ReplyDeleteJulia Hernandez P.3
Many president's have abused their executive powers because congress has been to lenient with theirs. I think that if Congress restores the power or strengthens the power they are suppose to have, many different decisions would have been made and a lot more could have been done. I also believe a lot more could have been done better perhaps if Congress would have had a stronger opinion in the matters. But there is also the chance that Congress could take to long on making decisions and that can hurt or country. So it is definitely a sticky situation.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't understand is how the president is able to do this. The government is usually so checked and regulated to ensure no tyranny of anyone gets through. Yes there are little bits of corruption here and there, but for the president to go against a document that we are suppose to follow publicly is insane. It's all thanks to Congress who doesn't just say no. They're the parents of this relationship and they just allow the president to trample over all of their authority. There are times where the president doesn't have time to just wait on Congress, but it's too dangerous because it will just lead to the president to keep pushing and pushing till they have ultimate power. This ability for the president to do as he pleases is unacceptable and Congress needs to get it's head back in the game.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why anyone would be shocked that the executive branch would take advantage of Congress's ineptitude. Creating legislation that is so ambiguous the president or outside groups must define it seems ridiculous, as why would Congress even pass this legislation if they care so little to create explicit boundaries in said legislation. This continued practice is a slippery slope, and at what point in time will the president no longer even confer with Congress to begin with? Congress must muster up some courage and start properly checking the president.
ReplyDeleteParis Barraza
P5
The trend of the augmentation of executive power, as pointed out by the author of the second article, is not anything new or even unexpected. Numerous presidential administrations have resulted in the expansion of presidential power. I agree with the first article in that Congress is in fault for this, due to their inaction—in both creating laws that do not provide for broad interpretation and in responding when presidents act without congressional approval. In this way, the branches have deviated from the separation of powers outlined by the drafters of the Constitution. Should this expansion continue, the powers of the president will be akin to that of a king—the Founding fathers' worst nightmare. Members of Congress have no right to whine and criticize the actions of the president when they are the ones facilitating them. If they want to curb or even halt overreaching presidents, they should not be handing their constitutionally outlined power to legislate over to the president so easily through ambiguous laws and intervene instead of complaining.
ReplyDeleteGianna Apoderado P.5
My take on this is that Congress is being too lenient. In the past, congress powers were very present in policies. I think in modern day politics the president walks over congress all the time because policies are needed quickly. In my opinion, I think we as a nation have let the president get too much power. We have reached a time where a president can basically blow up a airport in a foreign country because he feels the need to. Rather it's the right move or not isn't the factor. It's the fact that a president can do this without the consent of Congress. This is quite scary. Congress needs to slow things down before this futures on. It might be difficult, but the lasting effects will be worth it.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa Hill
Period 2
Our government is beginning to infuriate me to no end. Time and time again they put emphasis on things that our Congress does not even practice, like our Senate voting on vague bills, when they should be debating and scrutinizing the bill the president gave them. We might as well be taught that the president is the "most popular kid in school" and congress are his "groupies". Giving the president free reign, without even debating or discussing it, is something that should not be overlooked. Government is meant to balance each other out, not tip so far over to one side until the other side gives up. Congress needs to step back up to its responsibilities and understand that the people (ahem) voted on them for a reason- and that reason is to represent them, not give the president a free pass to his ambitions.
ReplyDeleteFrancesca Vista, pd.5
Think that the executive branch has gained so much power throughout the years that congress has lost its power to even be able to put checks and balances system in place, but was being someone that benefited from one of President Obama's executive order, I do see why Presidents and people don't mind the president using its "implied" power to pass executive treaties/orders to get things done, in my case immigration has been a very complicated topic that both the house and senate can not agree on, therefor having the president step in and do something was needed when he ordered DACA
ReplyDeleteThe checks and balances system seems to be losing ground. The executive branch has shown that it can act with almost no consequences because Congress allows it. Even private organizations are making important decisions in society that only Congress should be able to make. Members of Congress need to stop worrying about reelection and check the president when needed. Now of course, the president may need to act without Congress, but Congress can't be letting everything slide. I think that because people see the face of the President more often, people start to place him on a pedestal higher than the other branches. They feel closer to him even though the Congress was what was suppose to represent the people.
ReplyDeleteJeric Gaddi
Period 3
Throughout the past few years, there have been several occurrences in which the president has decided to circumvent Congress. Overtime, this has caused the president to have increased power, power more than the explicit and implied powers granted by the constitution. I do believe that sometimes it is necessary for the president to make rapid decisions and surpass the formal requirements that are necessary for Congress to make decisions. However, there should be a limit to this power and Congress should "check" on the powers of the president in order to avoid their powers being "stolen".
ReplyDelete-Gursimran Bains (Period 3)
Congress needs to take responsibility and utilize their powers to keep the president's powers in check. However, it also makes me wonder why Congress has continued to relinquish their powers. I wonder if, with all the media in modern days, Congress is fearful of public pressure and the potential backlash that will hurt their reputation, and so by giving more power to the president, it raises his responsibility and lowers Congress' responsibility. I fear that Congress's leniency of the president over the past few decades has created a "foot-in-the-door" effect where the tolerance of one small act increases the tolerance of a bigger act. If Congress continues to act this way, the president will wield even more power than before, becoming more independent from the government than ever before. I hope Congress will take action and reestablish their power and authority, especially with Trump being erratic and unpredictable.
ReplyDeleteTiffany Lu P.2
As pointed out by the article, this rise in executive power is nothing new. There is a long list of presidents that have used the executive power to their advantage. Congress has no right to criticize or negate the actions of the president either because they haven't done anything to stop it. In addition, they created the laws that are left open to broad interpretation. Who could blame the president for taking advantage of this? They have the opportunity to use the power of the purse or impose regulations yet they don't seem to have a problem with the rise of the executive branch. I believe Congress needs to step in if they don't want to lose this separation of powers and prevent the presidency from turning into a monarchy, which was the Framers' biggest fear.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Johnson-P.2
Since this system of government was first created in the United States, the Framers original idea was to have the legislative branch, the branch closest to the people to be the most influential branch. Today, the executive branch is the branch that is concentrated with the most power, and I do agree that this is because Congress has given the president executive privileges that are considered loopholes to Congress's enumerated powers. This has resulted in the government not being as connected to its citizens because the effectiveness of the original checks and balances system has decreased dramatically since this government was first implemented.
ReplyDeleteCassidy Wagner
Period 2
After reading the article, I think Congress needs to start actually using their powers. By Congress basically giving the president certain responsibilities that aren't even meant for the president (for example, the legislative branch delegated to the president the responsibility to decide what the law should be, how/when to implement it, and whether or not to enforce it), it's destroying the whole idea of both separation of powers and checks and balances. By giving the president responsibilities that aren't even meant for him, it makes it seem like the president is "all powerful" while Congress is kind of just there. In my opinion, this should be dealt with before the president has too much power and Congress is left with virtually no power over anything.
ReplyDeleteKennedy Madrid P.5
Congress has nobody but themselves to blame for the president taking advantage of them. The president's abuse of power is only going on because nobody is taking any steps to stop him. Congress has its reasons for writing such vague laws, but they should take into account that by doing this these laws are not even theirs anymore, the president is simply taking it and making it his own. If the President sees that he can do whatever he wants to a law with no question from anybody, why would he stop? The other branches should be stricter with the Executive branch, because it has gotten out of hand.
ReplyDeleteSharen Moniqca, period 2
I do believe that Congress has more power than it realizes. Separation of powers was made to make sure that no one branch had more power than the other. In this case, if Congress felt the executive branch was spiraling out of control, they have the ability to step in and see to it that the scale returns to its state of equilibrium rather than tipped by the executive branch. Also, Congress should not take for granted the fact that certain powers lie with them that not even the president can enforce. Congress has complete capability to make a change, however, it is not a measure of whether they can or can not, it is more of a measure of whether they will or will not.
ReplyDeleteKyla Wheeler, p. 2
I believe that Congress needs to step up to checking the executive branch and not allow the president’s power to grow so much. The president walking all over Congress is the opposite of what the Framers wanted. Congress has to be less lenient on what the president does and his use of executive power. With Congress stepping back, they no longer are a true representative for public opinion. Congress should not stray from the Constitution and create a meaningless democracy.
ReplyDeleteSaketh Sadhu
Period 3
The Legislative branch needs to stop allowing the Executive branch to have too much power, the Constitution wants there to be an equal share of powers between all three branches in able to ensure that they keep in touch of the people and perform checks and balances. If the Executive branch has too much power it could become the equivalent of a monarchy which is what America worked not to have and fought the Revolutionary War to break away from. In the end, the Legislative branch needs to tighten the leash on the Executive branch to ensure that the equal share of powers continues.
ReplyDelete-Wyatt Lemoine period: 2
As the each president is snowballing more and more power over the Congress, the checks and balances system seems to be whittling. Although, this is partly due to the Congresses inaction toward presidential executive powers. At some you're going to have to ask, maybe they aren't doing anything because they support the decision. Or maybe there are other reasons. But as the executive branch snowballs power, there might be a chance that somewhere in the future the powers of the exec will get so strong it will have to be limited in its implied powers. I do not think it would get so strong as to make the other two houses powerless against it.
ReplyDeleteI wonder why it is that Congress would even allow the Presidents over time to continue to take this much power and not put them in check. theres hardly to no checks and balances being enacted if the Presidents have continued to get this power. however for the Presidents I'm sure theyre loving this and they are constantly seeking different ways to implement their will almost and not even convene with Congress but I think its time Congress puts their foot down and starts checking our presidents before it gets out of hand.
ReplyDeleteEthan Cisneros
Period 5
This government has three branches, not two, this seems like something that Congress needs to be reminded of. The legislative branch exists for a reason, so the president cannot simply create and pass whatever they please without any sort of loose consent from the people through Congress. Congress needs to step up and use the powers that they have rather than setting their responsibilities aside. The President having this much power creates a disconnect with the will of the people as there is no incentive to even listen to the people when legislation can be written and passed by the same person.
ReplyDeleteRyan Cain Per. 3
One thing that really confuses me about this whole complex debate is how these articles paint the other two branches (legislative and judiciary, but more so the former) as inert, passive units that merely allow, and sometimes even applaud the ever so, far-reaching powers of the President. I wonder if this is truly intentional, because if anything, we would expect that the Legislative branch feel the need to pull back and cement the President's powers back, it's not like Congress wins anything by letting the President do as he pleases. The Legislative branch is the most representative (of the people) of all branches and must reassert its influence for the sake of the people.
ReplyDeleteRebecca Covarrubias
period 5
I believe the founding fathers did not believe America would manifest into a global empire, let alone a world power when they were molding the Presidency. It's very evident that "the most powerful office in the world" has expanded in the past few executive terms. This expansion of power has come at the expense of Congress. One example is the actions of recent presidents like Obama fighting informal wars, recognizing that the power to formally declare war is designated only to Congress. Congress should be checking the President more and more to ensure that he does not deviate from his powers outlined in the Constitution.
ReplyDelete-Theresa Aromin period 5
Clearly, the term “separation of powers” has lost a hint of its meaning since the president can take matters into his own hands without his actions being checked. If we continue to let this happen, we could end up living in a nation where all executive decisions are made by one person. Congress should continue to check the president’s power to make sure that he’s not abusing it.
ReplyDeleteJob Kimani
Period 5
As I read the article I came across this quote that I think argues my point for me, "James Madison recognized in Federalist No. 51, 'Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.'" From the times of James Madison until now, this country has been focused on the "American Dream" which is basically work hard until you make something of yourself. And as the world has spun, people have been woven into these greedy, consumer driven robots and we no longer focus on the issues we have but instead on how we can avoid them with the least amount of money and effort as possible. But "ambition must counteract ambition", if the congress wants things to change, practice what you preach and do something about it. Or better yet, so being so power hungry and just focus on getting your job done in the first place. A title or a pay raise really won't make you any more of a man. Especially if you had to complain your way to that position. This article has little to do with checks and balances and more to do with us as the people giving these men the power to even fight over this. The POTUS should be running the country in a constitutional manner and the Congress should be making sure he does exactly that, simple.
ReplyDeleteLauren Hartogh
per. 3
The strength of congressional powers seems to be dwindling. Checks and balances were designed to keep all branches of the government in check and from becoming tyrannical. It seems if so the presidency has found ways to go around some of the rules which makes congress look weaker. In some cases, it makes sense why the president would want to find a way around congressional power and they may be okay with it such as with Obama and the ACA, but with a president like the one currently in office, congress needs to try to regain that authority. Who knows what Trump is capable if he tries to circumvent the checks of power put on him.
ReplyDeleteLitzulli Figueroa p. 5
I think it has become a problem that the legislative branch which was designed to be the “main” branch of government by the founding fathers is becoming weaker and weaker in comparison to the executive branch. This branch is supposed to reflect the voice of the people the most, yet this DEMOCRATIC government is allowing the voice of the people to grow more and more silent as they place more power into the hands of the president and allow this branch of government to in a way walk all over the legislative branch. The separation of powers and idea of checks and balances needs to be re-strengthened as it was formerly intended when the Constitution was written to keep the voice of the people relevant.
ReplyDeleteViviana Nunez
period 5
This article shows how the power of Congress has slowly drifted away from the legislative branch and into the hands of the executive. Over the several decades, the president has abused his powers and has gained several "shortcuts" that are able to restrict Congress's power to overrule. I do also believe that president should be allowed to make some rash decisions without congress in cases where time is of the essence, but the legislative branch should regain it's authority to engage into such issues. It also appears that Congress does little to interfere and allows the executive to decipher for them, it seems that the legislative branch feels confident in the executives choices if they choose not to use the powers given to them in the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteSabrina Amador
P.3
Honestly, I agree with the author of this article. Because by giving the president all this power basically means he has the authority to do whatever he wants. It takes away the checks and balances job. However, both branches need to work together to restore power equally. Also, congress needs to stop messing around and take responsibility for their actions.
ReplyDeleteEthan Aurangzeb per. 2
Congress seems to be loosening its regulations and relying for more support in the executive branch. Could it be that congressmen want to “play it safe” and therefore allow the president to make the riskier decisions? Or are they just too ignorant for everyone to agree on what laws should or should not be passed that they handed their power over to the POTUS? If that’s the case then why even bother to continue a legislative branch. The article notices that over the past couple of years, presidents have been gaining more control and power. If this continues we will pretty much be similar to a monarchy. Therefore, the 3 branches need to update and refine how checks and balances should be operated and abide by the power assigned to them.
ReplyDeleteMikayla Teves
P.5
The doctrine of separation of powers was created in order to ensure that no one branch would have higher power than the others. This separation of powers is slowly going away. Congress needs to do a better job of checking the President’s power. Congress continues to pass vague bills, leaving the President to interpret them how they want and giving them a higher power. The President should follow the separation of powers, but it is also up to Congress to clearly write a bill and state exactly how they want something done.
ReplyDeleteJuliann Salinas, Per. 2
The executive power has gotten out of hand and has become constitutionally incorrect. This excess of unchecked power from the President has lead to a spiral of continuous presidents abusing their powers because of undetermined Congressman to withhold their power and check the President. There is a reason why Congress is reluctant to check the President because if for every foreign or domestic decision there is a time frame that must be met Congress is incapable of making a decision quickly enough to properly execute any policy. This outcome is definite that Congress will never be able to vote on a decision with a time limit, but by allowing the President so many informal powers that can affect the country tremendously we gamble with a President that can create and enforce powerful policies without a separate entity or brand checking the executive.
ReplyDeleteEnrique Menjivar
Per.3
It does seem that Congress is loosening the reigns when it comes to how much power the Executive branch holds. While I find it perfectly fine for the president to have power, there is a reason that our government is comprised of three branches. Each branch is meant to check and balance out the others. It seems now that Congress is losing powers and the president is gaining momentum and picking up greater responsibilities with each administration. While not perfect, the three branches of government must continue to check each others powers and have an equal say in "executive" decisions. These executive decisions should have never trickled down down to the president in the first place. What's the deal Congress?
ReplyDelete-Andres Garcia / period 5
Since the President is the face of our country, it is understandable to see why he pushes power. Many regulations in the constitution are blurry and it is ultimately up to Congress to check his power. What makes the United States political structure so unique is checks and balances. Congress must redeem their power because lately it has been slipping. Congress is the one who passes laws, the president should only inforce them. Handing such a large sum of power to the president is something that the founding fathers would have greatly disapproved of. If this abuse of allowed powers continues, check and balances would have officially failed. Both the legislative and executive branch must work together to restore power.
ReplyDeleteMaya Domozetska
P.3
It is alarmingly evident that the checks and balances system isn't checking and balancing as well as it should. The mere fact that the president get away with informal wars is dangerous because of the like dictator power that could follow it. It would still be legal because the 'wars' are informal and have not gone through congress to actually become a fully fledged war yet they are fighting them like they are. One aspect of the article that pleased me was when this was stated " Congress must reassert its constitutional mandate to legislate and appropriate, rather than lazily passing a blank check to the White House." It proclaimed that this is not soley the fault of the President, and that the Congress inst attending to their job with such attentiveness and I believe that this is one of the problems that should be fixed.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the power shift from the legislative branch to the executive branch should be looked into. The executive branch and the legislative branch must both share the power when making laws and carrying out actions. That was part of the checks and balances introduced in our constitution. By giving the executive branch more power it seems that it glorifies the president and make it seem that his ideology can be law.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Tong
Period 5
While I think it is kind of sneaky for the president (and any president of the past) to use their power to find loopholes, I believe that Congress should get just as much blame. If the President is overstepping his boundaries and offsetting the system of checks and balances, then Congress should be the first to intervene and make sure that the power stays equally divided between the three branches of government. This trend is actually somewhat frightening to me, because it seems that Presidents are becoming more and more willing to bend the rules in order to get what they want, and Congress is simply letting it all happen. This could potentially lead to a situation in which the President acts as almost a dictator figure because the other branches will have no power or will to stop it. This is a bit extreme but with the way executive orders are being tossed around nowadays *cough cough* , Congress seems to have less and less of their share of power in running this country, while the power of the President only seems to grow.
ReplyDeleteAlysa Quijada
p.2
It is important for our government that checks and balances is still prominent to keep one branch from having too much power. I believe in certain immediate problems the president has the right to bypass congress but on less urgent decisions I don't see why it's necessary. Instead of writing vague laws for the president to enforce, congress should write detailed and clearer laws so the president knows exactly how to enforce them.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, it seems that if what's been occurring continues, the executive branch will hold more authority over the legislative. This completely goes against why "separation of powers" was inputted by the founding fathers. Although it appears that sometimes it could be necessary for a president to act beyond his enumerated powers, I also feel that it's come to a point where congress should strictly enforce what his actual powers are. One branch rising over another is exactly what we don't need, and so I believe it has now become necessary for the legislative branch to bring separation of powers back by ending the executive's overruling.
ReplyDeleteLindsay Gonzalez Period 2
I believe that the President should be kept in check by the other two branches. But I also believe in what the president is doing in cetin situations. What trump did is something that should be supported for the reason that syria was using chemical weapons which is a war crime and should have been a full NATO assault on syria. But then again NATO countries are shown to be powerful but weak when military action should be taken which is why WW2 happened. I do understand that I am coming from one side which is true to a certain extent what I am trying to say is that I do support the idea of the U.S staying out of syria and letting them fix their problem even though the syrian regime is shown to be evil they have to do what they need to keep the county together. But the way they are doing it should been checked because if we show our enemies that we will give a pass on war crimes they will keep on pushing the limit to the point where they would be like Germany before WW2 happened.
ReplyDeleteImran Jalal
Per 3
This article has some very legitimate arguments and I am sure that we can hot potato this argument for years but I'm going to try my best to make it short and sweet. Yes we are a constitutional democracy, yes checks and balances must be utilized in governing, these are all givens to me in this case. What does need to be stated has nothing to do with demographics whatsoever; it is beyond race, gender, party affiliation, ideology and all that and that thing is moral principle. By moral principle i mean doing the right thing, and yes this idea can very but deep down in every decent human being there s the concept of right and wrong. We as a nation should trust our appointed leader enough to carry out decisions that need to be made hastily without the delay of congress, even if the extreme was to happen and the were reprecussions for the nation the same man who made that decision would have to live with and bear the blame for them. At the end of the day we need to find grey areas and hope for the best when it comes to certain executive decisions.
ReplyDeleteisaac addai
p3
As said before by many of peers, it is obvious that this "blind-spot" on the President is evidently causing a reasonable amount of power gained on their behalf. It is needed that Congress steps in and kind of takes back the slack that was given; now I do agree that the president should have power BUT there shouldn't be loopholes through where he can gain even more.
ReplyDeleteArturo Escamilla
P. 5
I think that allowing the President to have this much power takes away the purpose of Separation of Powers. There are no checks and balances at this point as the President is able to carry out actions that are unconstitutional. This power can cause corruption in so many different ways. I think our government needs more restrictions when allowing tge president to make decisions.
ReplyDeleteKaren Girgis p2
The article's main point is about congress allowing the president so much freedom and not utilizing their power to check him. The problem is the article makes it difficult to judge if its congress's own laziness or much more likely the controversy in the specific examples it gives. Immigration for one is a very controversial subject, one that many of congress would like to detract from because it could potentially cost them a reelection. It is however much easier to push the responsibility to the president and when it falls through, to criticize him showing their constituents they too are with them against the president's "over-step". One could also say that Congress's lack of checking could stem from our sheep-like nature. Humans are group oriented creatures, and in a group it is much more efficient to filter decision making through a singular/small sector. A democracy like America could be considered against our nature because of the sheer size and dependability it lays on each of its parts. Decisions (especially those that could result in heavy criticism) would not be made at rapid pace. Essentially Congress shows a natural human trend towards dictatorship. To rectify this each person in the Senate, the House of Representatives, and even the executive branch must remain constantly aware and active, for we humans have the ability to defy our nature.
ReplyDelete-Michael Diamreyan
I think that the legislative branch should regain their back bone and start carrying out what the constitution says in regards to checking the executive branch. Passing laws that are vague and unclear causes it to be easy for the president to change and interpret them however he or she wants. It is okay, in my opinion, for the president to make certain calls that surpass the power of congress for the well being of our country. But at the end of the day, I firmly believe that our democratic nation needs to be upheld by following the constitution and abiding by the checks and balances rules placed before us.
ReplyDeleteAdrianna Sandoval Period 3
We must remember the constitution has many grey areas and leaves much room for leeway. As the president, yes you must faithfully execute the task of office according to the constitution. However, what do you do when scenarios that our founding fathers did not predict occur and now we are placed in a position to contradict the very skeleton of our nation? At times, it is absolutely necessary to use executive power to override congress. The American people must be weary that that although there is potential for a “dictator” to rise, the chances of that are very slim and any presidential overrides will be indeed, deemed necessary in their eyes.
ReplyDeleteTariq Nugud
P. 3
With the country's set goal was to have a separation of powers, it doesn't make sense with the amount of power the Executive Branch, and particularly the President, has today. Because Congress has allowed the President to slip through many loopholes, the power of the presidency has significantly increased over the past 200 or so years. And not only until recently have we noticed that being president has many "informal" powers like executive agreements and the ability to fight undeclared wars. Congress can either step up to the base and fix the problem that's been slipping through their fingers or find a president willing to resign their informal powers to bring equilibrium to the separation of powers. And obviously, the latter will probably never occur due to the greed of power.
ReplyDeleteGiuseppi Pelayo
period 2
Congress must limit how often they defer power to the president. While the process of enacting and carrying out a law might be expedited, the issue still lies in the balance of power being tipped heavily into the executive branch. Certain situations do call for immediate action but it seems that in more and more scenarios President is allowed to act without input from congress.
ReplyDeleteNicolas Goodling
Per 2
If I were President and put into such a situation where it was almost too easy to bend rules my way... why wouldn't I? As Congressmen continue to stay away and refuse to intervene on Presidential opinion, they're opening up a way for the President to essentially be a monarch, something that the system of checks and balances was supposed to inhibit. And from reading above, the idea that Congressmen would rathe ensure a secure seat the go against the president, really makes me wonder what the true motives of our legislatures are.
ReplyDeleteJumana Roufail, Period 2
I truly believe the article surmised this best when they proceeded to say, "When Congress fails to check the other branches, the executive, acting alone, aggrandizes the legislative power from generation to generation." It is extremely true that back in the day this issue was extremely insignificant to the equilibrium of separation of powers, however slowly but surely, time and time again the executive branch seems to acquire more and more power that should be stunted by Congress; and to what end will this pattern continue. We can't afford to continue to expound upon the damage we are incurring on this system of checks and balances by letting the executive branch, for a lack of a better phrase, run amok. This issue will continue to exponentially grow if not checked sooner rather than later.
ReplyDeleteKenechi Ikeanyi (Period 5)
I think that the increasing power of the executive branch reflects an inefficiency in the way Congress is run and the rate at which legislature is passed, especially taking into consideration that Congress has to represent and continuously increasing US population. However, saying this I also understand that delegation is a controversial component necessary to keeping the workload moving through so that more legislature can be reviewed. While I don't know how these issues can be fixed I do know for certain that this increasing dependency on the president/executive branch is extremely dangerous because it's opening the door for more internal and (especially) external conflict that can have extreme consequences on the state of the entire nation. Do we really trust our president THAT much? Isn't he just human after all?
ReplyDeleteKaity Ortiz Period5
I call it as I see it and that is that the executive branch has exceeded in reaching and expanding its powers beyond a realistic scope of a government that is supposed to made of three branches. As i see it, its a clear failure to the checks and balance system as the executive branch has the power to weave their way around these same checks while doing what they fit. As wrong as it is theres much to blame on the earlier presidents and Congress' lack of foresseing such possibilities because as with history comes precedent and America as country is one known and is all about it precendents so as the power given to executive branch travels down the line without being stopped furthers broadens the creativity and opens the hole for exploit without cease.
ReplyDeleteJesse Nkemere p.3
As I read this article, I can understand the need for change and for congress to reassert itself. Congress is essentially leaving the president unchecked, and I feel it is especially important in todays time to regain control.... as our president has bombed a country without proper approval by congress without any consequences. I feel as though congress should not always oppose the president, but should work together in finding the best solution for our country, and not just one persons opinion of the best solution.
ReplyDelete-Ashley Quintana
p.3
The POTUS has received a lot of power, and that was never the intention of the Constitution. The executive powers shouldn’t be left unchecked, that’s why we have checks and balances, but it looks like Congress is being too lenient on what the president can do. But why? Why is Congress just now deciding to let the President do certain things without Congressional approval? Even if they agree on the President’s actions, there still needs to be a checking of executive power just to make sure he doesn’t try and abuse it. Just as the article said, Congress needs to put its foot down instead of ignoring the situation and just letting the POTUS do what they want. Yea sure Congress writes laws and passes them, but writing them vaguely? What do they expect? The POTUS will interpret these laws how he wants to, not necessarily abiding by what Congress had intended. Its giving the executive branch more power than it should have, its opening the door to monarchy, which is exactly what the framers were avoiding. If Congress isn’t enforcing this part of the constitution, then why should the rest of the constitution be valid to any of the other branches? Either all of it is enforced, or none of it is.
ReplyDeleteErick Martinez period3
I believe the biggest issue, if the problem of increasing presidential power has to be attributed to one and only one cause, is the ambiguity contained in laws that allow the president to interpret and execute a law as he or she pleases. Unfortunate examples of this behavior include Obama's treatment of the Wire Act and No Child Left Behind Act. While I do think some measure of increased presidential authority is welcome, especially given that both political parties are resorting increasingly to obstructionism and bitterly partisan congressional rule changes, too much power in the hands of the executive branch is far too dangerous. It undoes all of the delicate checks and balances the Founders sought to instill in order to avoid a monarchy; one possible solution I can see to this is writing laws to include some free measure as to how the president should carry out policy, but not enough ambiguity as to legally allow the president to interpret the law in such a way that blatantly violates the premise of the law.
ReplyDeleteFrom now on, the POTUS needs to consider working within the system--cooperating with his own political party to help gain control of Congress and the White House--instead of adding conflict, strife, and clashing policy to a system that thrives on stability.
It sure seems like Congress is refusing to assert itself when it comes to checking the power of the executive branch. Laws have become too vague and "unofficial". The President is making decisions based on what he feels is necessary, and Congress is continuously allowing him to do so. What is the purpose of an established system of checks and balances when neither of those things are occuring
ReplyDeleteChristopher Jordan, P.3
Obama's treatment of the Wire Act and No Child Left Behind Act is unacceptable. This sort of far-reaching presidential behavior cannot be tolerated; as you may have seen in class, I tend to focus a lot on motive, although it may be hard to prove in court. Obama is tending to directly oppose the wishes of Congress, leading to a failure to carry out what the Constitution intended: the POTUS must enforce and carry out Congress' policies, not directly clash with them and add ambiguity and instability to a government already wracked with bitter partisanship.
ReplyDeleteArthur Kim p.3
The present day checks and balances are clearly unbalanced. As I see it, the Executive branch has found a way to unilateraly carry out its own wishes that it sees fit. These are not wise measures to take- instead I see them as actions out of impulse that should never be allowed to govern a country.
ReplyDeleteTo me it seems that the biggest issue we have is the insistence for politicians to further their party's platform rather than actually do their job. Sure, sometimes they should do what their party wants. However, their first and foremost obligation is to the American people. The American people selected them to do the job of Congress- all that the Constitution gives them the power to do. The American people did not vote them into office to secede all of their power to another branch of government because it makes it easier for the party in power to act as they want. This is the exact opposite of acting in the best interest of the American people, and we need to start seeing this executive overreach and legislative weakness for what it is.
ReplyDeleteMadeline Casolari, P.3
The weakness of the legislative branch is the exact opposite of the best interest of the American people. We elected our reps to represent out will when making ALL major decisions. We did NOT elect them to secede their powers to a president who shares a party with them or an ideological similarity. Although this expedites the process, it allows the executive to act however it wants with effectively no check on it what so ever. This brings us further away from a constitutional democracy and closer to a tyrannical monarchy, which is the exact opposite of what out FF wanted.
ReplyDeleteMAdeline Casolari, P.3
(sorry this is a bit late, I tried to submit before the deadline, but the site crashed and deleted all my work.)
I agree with the author of the article when they are saying that Congress needs to pick up the slack because it is true. Over the years, the POTUS has gained a substantial amount of power which not only could result in the failure of the system of checks and balances on which we have relied for so long, but could put us in a possible dictatorship, to say the worst. The reason it is important that Congress keeps doing their job is because if they do not, the idea of representation of the people will almost completely be demolished AND our government will become extremely and totally decentralized. However, I do understand that there are enough loopholes in the system through which the POTUS can maintain power which is why I think those certain “rights” or “implied powers” may need to be checked and put under revision.
ReplyDeleteThis article shows just how out of balance our balance of powers has become. While it is the president's fault for not following the set rules, it is also Congress's fault for allowing the president to not check with the other branches. The president has slowly but surly gained momentum and the amount of power he has keeps increasing. Congress definitely needs to check the POTUS so he does not gain too much power. It's not that we are against the president and we don't want him to have a ton of power, but we need to put a cap on the amount of power any of the three branches have to keep our government system modest and to keep it from being taken over by any one branch.
ReplyDeleteSitembile Sukuta (p.5)
While the presidency has made large grabs at the legislative power, using loopholes to undermine the legislative branch, It is the legislative branches fault for using vague wordings in its laws, being sluggish, and generally failing the american people in effective lawmaking. It therefore stands that in fixing the gridlocked congress we fix our presidents ambition too
ReplyDeleteP.2
I believe that this article is showing that over time the power of the president is growing but not in a good way. I think the more power the president has the less point there is to the separation of powers and checks and balances. I think that if it continues this way that it can get way out of hand and it could lead to a dictatorship or something of that sort. I think we definitely need to reevaluate ourselves
ReplyDeleteAbsent blog!
Luz cabada period 2
To me it seems that the power of the president has been built up over the years, as Congress has continually passed off their powers to the president. They do this by writing vague laws, allowing the President to enforce however they want. This has made it so there are less checks and balances for the executive branch, greatly skewing power towards the President. The people of the legislative branch need to start writing more clear and concise laws and thus comply with their Constitutional responsibilities.
ReplyDeleteSamira Torna
P. 3
It's safe to say that the President continues to gain immense power as the years go by. They get away with executing the vaguely written legislations by Congress because there are no concrete or specific guidelines on how the president should carry them out;therefore,the President is free to interpret it however he desires. In addition, Congress doesn't challenge most of the presidential decisions, even though some are unconstitutional;giving more power to the President. Congress needs to start using their checking power to stop the President's unconstitutional acts and to stop increasing the power the president has of the country and to start returning the power to the people's representatives, the Congress.
ReplyDeletePatricia Molinos period 5
Congress has really let the president gain too much power. But at the same time I believe congress is losing power. Congressmen now only worry about reelection and party loyalty rather than getting bills passed like they were supposed to do when the founders created congress. Now the president has gained a lot of power allowing them to stray further and further from our intended check and balance system to if they gain more power our presidency could almost stray to a dictatorship or almost a monarchical type of ruling over our nation. It's time for congress to start making a change, but it starts with the people. If the people cared more about our legislation and didn't feel like or political offices are a far distant world more could get done and they would elect more congressmen to get the job done instead of passing vague bills that the president can veto or sign but with his signing statement almost sidestep the whole bill. As the founders intended, change needs to start with the people.
ReplyDelete-Will Montgomery p.2 Absent