The Cellar - Question: Why do we need an Executive Branch?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Question: Why do we need an Executive Branch? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=16584)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumberjim (Post 430458)

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint (Post 430460)

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

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

Like this:

Quote:

when I awoke this morning
the sun's eye was as red as blood
stench of burning corpses
faces in the mud

...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.

Quote:

President Bush recently signed the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act into law, which was passed overwhelmingly by the House, 397-27, and by the Senate, 92-3.
Unfortunately the bill was altered greatly after passage by the president.

The president used several signing statements to undermine key portions of the bill. The bill outlawed the use of taxpayer money to construct permanent bases in Iraq; Bush's statement reads the exact opposite. The bill also spelled out guidelines for the transfer of information to Congress about fraud in Iraq; Bush again used a signing statement to alter this provision completely.

http://www.amarillo.com/stories/0207...letters1.shtml

Quote:

Bush's latest signing statement declares his right to ignore sections of the law establishing a commission to investigate U.S. contractor fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan, expanding whistleblower protections, requiring that U.S. intelligence agencies respond to congressional requests for documents, banning funding for permanent bases in Iraq, and prohibiting funding of any actions that exercise U.S. control over Iraq's oil revenues.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 430492)

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

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?