Question: Why do we need an Executive Branch?
 

I'm doing a paper on the question and I wanted to hear some other thoughts on the subject.

Why do we need an Executive Branch?

Would we be better off with a "Republican Parliamentary" system of government?

Prime Minister instead of President?

And anything else you can think of...

Go!

decapitated bodies wander about running into walls.

Are those, like, some kind of death metal lyrics?

Points, it sounds to me like they want to either argue for or against the US parliamentary system.

Are you for or against?

it's an allegory ....or maybe a parable. possibly it's death metal lyrics.

Like this:
...no, wait. That's a Sting song.

The executive branch, in theory, is just one more check on the power of the government. The executive checks the legislative branch.
In practice, though, what we have is a half-crippled dictatorship. The executive has taken a lot more power than it's constitutionally given.

Ibram. I don't see the problem being stolen power. There has to be someone invested with great power to handle emergent situations. What has happened, however, is that ad hoc measures have been extended into law by a subservient Congress.

That said, I don't study the government very closely.

Why do we need an Executive Branch?
 

Because that's the way our Constitution set up our government. Without the executive branch it would be someone else's form of government. You know, one of those icky Parliament things.

You could do away with all three branches and let me be dictator, but I don't think you'd like that very much.

King Bruce - gotta admit - It has a nice ring.

well, you need a third branch to balance and check the other two. Simplistic answer, I know. The other function of the executive branch of government, and remember there's an executive branch at all levels, federal, state, and local, is to provide police powers, to keep the peace. Or wage war, as necessary.

http://www.amarillo.com/stories/0207...letters1.shtml
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/fisher.php?articleid=12317

I agree with a need for the executive branch, and for necessary powers during extraordinary times. But the fact that he can sign an act, but change some very key things?

The judicial branch is almost powerless. You can look at Brown vs Board of Education. Many declare this as resulting in desegregation of public schools. B vs BE was decided in 1954. Desegregation didn't immediately follow. It took the President in 1957 to enforce it by sending troops to Little Rock. Its certainly true that B vs BE paved the way, but the judicial branch lacks any enforcement capabilities.

It's good to be the king. Now where's the Royal Piss Boy?

All the presidents have used signing statements to get things done around Congress or to declare their intent. Not new.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php

the government is like a three legged stool, mmkay? if'n you take away one of those legs, your stool just leans too far to one side until it falls over, mmkay?

Why are we doing your homework?

it is the american way.

First world cop, now world detention monitor?

Is that a promotion?

hey don't look at me - i don't want a freakin' nanny state.

Taking it as two separate questions. Second question. Prime Minister is nothing more than an executive just like a president. The British play games with the Prime Minister answering to the Queen. But reality is otherwise. The Prime Minister is the sole leader - the executive.

First question goes back even to how operations were conducted 2000 years before the New World was discovered - before Christ. Any operation conducted without a sole leader in the field was doomed to failure. It was well known that long ago. Same is a problem in Airbus that has multiple leaders and therefore could not avert major manufacturing failures and therefore requires government subsidies. Same mistake was made by the British in 1770s America. Same mistake was made by mental midgets who never learned basic management concepts and imposed their stupidity in Iraq. The fractured American leadership was directly traceable to a supreme commander sitting in the Pentagon where he had no idea of reality and he was divorced from the only thing necessary for success.

Some mistake an executive as a dictator. When the executive is a dictator, then the best one can hope for is stunning short term gains and a long term disaster. Great leaders do not dictate. Great leaders seek out and promote the innovators within their system. See the movie Apollo 13 to understand why great management meant 3 astronauts, who should have died, were saved.

Danger of a sole executive is found in another well understood concept. When they live too long in the ethersphere (typically 10 years), then they become corrupt and disattached. They forget what their job is. Too many yes-men and power grabbers have converged around them. They forget what once made them so successful. They lose touch with what kept them honest.

For this reason, governments also need a Congress, Parliament, Senate, Knesset, Board of Directors, or Dumas. Once a leader becomes a dictator (instead of an advocate of the people), then a committee with power must save that institution from that dictator. How badly did Carly Fiornia harm Hewlett Packard before the board finally removed her? Need we cite Richard Nixon as one of the greatest threats to this nation's government? Other examples were Johnson's wise men who finally got him to realize the disastrous mistake called Vietnam.

A most recent example of why an executive is required is the American management in 2003 Iraq. American soldiers are still dying because the administration violated management principles well proven even 2500 years ago. Worse is that the Congress was even so dumb as to go along with it. Examples include Tom Daschle, Democratic Senate leader. You would think after all these centuries, when stupid management mistakes are obvious, then people in power would see it? But Iraq is the perfect example of management corruption created or advocated by Bremmer, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, Feith, George Jr, and especially Cheney.

Management always needs a central leader. But, do not confuse that leader with something corrupt - a dictator. Great management has central leadership that is not a dictatorship. Does the leader work for his people / institution? Or do the people / institution work for the leader? Reasons why are found in what that management must do to advance mankind: innovate.

Wow, I leave for a week, and there is sooo much to read.


Because we need leadership. Leadership and management are very, very different things.

Leaders, any leaders, lead at the consent of those they lead.

We have a "President", because that is the way our government is described in our constitution.

Lumberjim is correct.

Wow. You leave for a week and you forget how to read.

Which of lumberjim's two posts are correct, if you please?

The British Prime Minister is not a seperate Branch of Govenment like the US President.
As the top dog they choose ministers and set agendas, but do not have the individual power to set policy and law.

Pick one.

An "executive" of some type may be a prerequisite for and a defining characteristic of a modern state. I mean, is there a country today without either an elected, hereditary, or conqueror-type figurehead? Even if it is more than one person, or more than one figurehead.

:corn:

I think watching people thinking well is fun.

Those that can, do. Those that can't, watch.

Glad you're having fun though. :)

Most Presidents use signing statements to clarify their interpretation of a specific law, not as a declaration of defiance. Bush has issued more signing statements (over 1,100 to date) than all other previous Presidents and uses them in a manner simillar to a line item veto, a practice ruled to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...dreds_of_laws/

I don't care. He used them as he saw fit. I didn't agree with all of it but he did it and people followed his wishes. In a few months we will have another president who will do things many disagree with. Not new.

You're not alone in your contempt for the rules of law. In the past, signing statements were used sparingly to express concerns about Constitutional issues or a fundamental disagreement between the Executive and Legislative branches. However, the only branch that can determine the Constitutionality of a law is the Judiciary. The only branch that can alter a law as written is the Legislative. Nowhere is it stated that a President/Executive can simply choose whether or not a law he signed is legal, enforcable, or anything else. He either signs it and it becomes a law that he is sworn to uphold, or he vetoes it. Period.

If Hillary wins we're going to quote this relentlessly.

I doubt Hitlery would use signing statements like Bush did. If she does there will be plenty of other people calling the kettle black. I certainly care if Hitlery gets elected, since I don't want her in the White House. :D

Unlike all other presidents (except Nixon), he used it only because the Presidency did not have enough power. Whereas other presidents had respect for the segregation of powers as defined by the Constitution, Pres Cheney does not. Cheney stated so. Signing statements and other perversions of the American government were used to do torture, international kidnapping of the innocent, wiretapping of anyone including George Jr political opponents - especially whistle blowers, suspension of Habeas Corpus so as to eliminate Judicial powers, promoting lies to create "Mission Accomplished", and even unilaterally destroying international treaties only because extremists did not like those treaties. All these executed for the glory of wacko extremists and in contempt for American patriots - the moderates.

TheMercenary does not care because belligerence, violence, hate, and more wars mean the greater glory for extremism. He even hates immigrants such as ants, bees, and earth worms.

Only an Idiot would believe that ants, bees, and earthworms are immigrants. :lol2:

TheMercenary again uses insult as proof. Insult, derogatory remarks, hate, and proof provided only using a political agenda. He gets predictable.

Does he call her Hitlary because she is his next target? Isn't that how extremists gain power?

Meanwhile, those who learned basic science know that ants, bees, and earthworms are immigrants. All arrived without using Ellis Island.

Kinda like the Pot calling the Kettle Black - no?

:lol2: Hey Ted, don't forget the Dinosaurs! They were immigrants too!

Its TOM!
(isn't it?)

I think he made a comment about the unibomber once and has just run with it.

Yes.

Yes. I can't shake the thought that he looks just like Ted Kaczynski or Gollum from LOTR. :D

Now Merc, thats just mean.

I like the t-dub!

Moi??? Never.