As far as the Constitution itself, here’s one online version, with some commentary. It’s helpful to remember that this is a document drafted in the late 18th century, so the language as well as the intent behind it is a little archaic.

Thanks.

It’s pretty pathetic given they’ve made it a party platform to trash government at every turn. Now they’ve got a president who is saying: Let’s let the private sector do this.

And they don’t like it.

Make no mistake, the Apollo program had dick-all to do with science or exploration; it was *all* about demonstrating technical superiority over a hated enemy. That we managed to get something useful out of it was a secondary consideration.

As far as the Constitution itself, here’s one online version, with some commentary. It’s helpful to remember that this is a document drafted in the late 18th century, so the language as well as the intent behind it is a little archaic. One of the more fun arguments happening in American legal circles (for suitably small value of “fun”) is how much weight should be given to the literal text of the Constitution vs. the intent of the authors, and how that affects its interpretation in the modern day.

But ..but .. how does the President ever get anything done like the healthcare reforms he passed just recently?

It’s all about politics; either trading political favors (I’ll vote for this bill if you give me X) or applying political pressure (vote for this bill or we’ll support a challenger in the next primary). Presidents like LBJ managed to collect long strings of markers throughout their political careers that they called in once they were in office.

Sometimes it’s a matter of making your case clearly and forcefully. Sometimes it’s a matter of compromise. Sometimes it’s threatening political Armageddon. Sometimes it’s making your case directly to the American people and have them harass their representatives (this was a major factor in the HCR battle last year). Sometimes it’s gaming the press. Sometimes it’s all of the above.

How the blazes do you manage to run *anything* like that!?!

The whole point of the system is to make it as difficult as possible to get anything done. The people who designed our government were very distrustful of government so they went out of their way to limit it. Making the various branches of government have to fight each other was one of the ways they made sure that no one branch could gain too much power or get stuff done too easily. It makes it hard for them to do stupid stuff, which is good, but it also makes it hard to do necessary stuff, which is bad. Parliamentary systems make it much easier to do necessary stuff, but also much easier to do stupid stuff. It is a trade-off, by making it easier to respond to serious problems you also make abuse easier, by making abuse harder you also make it harder to respond to serious problems.

But ..but .. how does the President ever get anything done like the healthcare reforms he passed just recently?

Because he was able to convince enough members of congress to go along with it. That is why it took so long, it was extremely hard for him to convince enough people to vote for it, especially when the republican party refused to vote for it under any circumstances for political reasons. It took months and months of deal-making, modification, and compromise before he could get enough members of congress to agree to vote for it. He was totally at the mercy of congress, he could do nothing whatsoever without their approval.

How was JFK effectively able to get momentum going for Apollo then .. ?

See previous, but he didn’t have to deal with one party stonewalling the process and there was overwhelming public support thanks to the cold war so it wasn’t as hard.

How was JFK effectively able to get momentum going for Apollo then .. ?

Wow.

(Yes, yes, I’ll try and research more & read your constitution if I can find it somewhere.)

Okay. That’s a mind*** for me. Thanks for that explanation I guess.

It turns everything I used to think about US politics pretty much on its head!

The president’s power when it comes to enacting laws is more his power to make deals and use his popularity and role as the head and most public figure of his party to his advantage, rather than any enumerated powers set forth under the constitution. – The Black Cat

That’s it … that’s all? .. Yegods!! It seems pathetic really if you don’t mind me saying so. That’s .. whew, it’ll take me awhile to get my head around that.

Prime ministers have a LOT more power than presidents because their is no separation between legislative and executive branches, but they are also much more vulnerable for the same reason. Presidential systems of government are totally different than parliamentary systems for that reason.

I’m used to the parliamentary system where the PM usually – not always coz he still has to deal with parliament & his own party but generally has a majority – gets his wayand can dictate what tehpolicies and agendas are going to be.

I had thought – okay wrongly I get *that* much now – that your system was fairly similar (a western Representative democracy along the British~ish lines) to ours except witha much *more* – not LESS – powerful “Chief”. Looks like our national systems are very much more different than I thought.

If the president wants to get things done, then congress wins 100% of the time. … No, he can’t. Period, end of story. IT CANNOT BE DONE! – The Black Cat

Goshdurnnit that sucks!!

That really sucks.

How the blazes do you manage to run *anything* like that!?!

I mena I know you do, somehow it just .. it’s just .. whoah that sounds like a messed up way of running things to me.

[Shakes head, knows its true but *still* has trouble reallybelieving the President is *that* powerless vs Congress.]

So doesn’t the President lead the US, isn’t *that* his role???

Not as originally envisioned, no. The *perception* of the President’s role has changed, especially since the advent of television, and Congress has been deferring power to the Executive since the Cold War. Congress still basically runs the show, though.

You make the POTUS sound so powerless & unable to actually effect anything – more a symbolic figurehead like our Australian Governor general as opposed to our Aussie Prime Minister – which doesn’t seem to be the case.

Not at all; the POTUS *does* have real power in many areas. The Executive’s role is to enforce the laws passed by the Legislature, and to that end he has quite a bit of authority. He’s the CinC of all the armed forces during wartime; he has extensive law enforcement powers (through the Justice department); he appoints judges, ambassadors, and other federal officers (with Congressional approval required for some of them); he plays a significant role in foreign policy (again, though, some things require Congressional approval). He can direct policy in those departments under his control (Justice, Housing, EPA, etc.), which has a significant effect on the daily lives of most Americans. And the biggie is that he can decide whether a bill becomes law or not (although Congress can override a veto with enough votes). The President cannot dictate what goes into the budget, but he can control whether the budget becomes law, which gives him *some* leverage over what programs get funded.

If there’s a clash between the Congress and the President as there was in the Clinton years doesn’t the President “out-rank” Congress or its individual top dog. (Speaker?) If it comes down to the crunch in the power struggle – can’t the President overcome Congress usually unless its an impeachment and even there – that hasn’t ever happened and only been a threat?

In terms of *defined* power, Congress wins. Congress has the power to remove a sitting President (for “high crimes and misdemeanors”, a frustratingly vague and elusive term), but the President cannot remove any member of Congress (not directly, anyway). *Politically* speaking, it can go either way; back in the mid-90s, Congressional Republicans clashed with President Clinton over the budget and demanded cuts the President wasn’t willing to make, causing parts of the government to shut down for lack of funds (again, Congress determines the budget, but the President has to sign it into law for it to take effect). The idea was that Clinton would be blamed for the shutdown and suffer politically, but the tactic backfired spectacularly. Clinton wound up being re-elected, and the Speaker (Newt Gingrich) lost his seat.

So why doesn’t Obama use that leverage to double NASA’s budget for the manned program? We’re fighting two wars, the economy is still struggling, the national debt is in the trillions, and the manned program is a *money pit*. It’s a drop in the bucket in the overall budget, but we’re still talking about tens of billions-with-a-b of dollars for a *very* visible program with no visible payoff. When it comes to basic science, the unmanned program absolutely spanks the manned program; the entire Mars exploration program has proven that you really don’t need boots on the ground to perform amazing and valuable scientific research. Until someone can articulate *why* we need to send people back to the Moon or to Mars (beyond the usual lame “because it’s there” or “human need to explore” excuses), there’s no reason for the manned program to exist.

That the President could decide policy directions and essentially lead the US (& lets face it the rest of the “Free /Western world as well!) as he so chooses – with a few exceptions and a few checks & balances (eg. Constitution, Courts, Congress) but otherwise pretty much in total charge.

Completely and totally wrong. Try reading the U.S. constitution, it is pretty clear on the matter.

Okay, maybe I don’t understand the US system as well as I thought I did – but that’s how I *thought* the system essentially worked and where, ultimately, the power was vested.

You thought wrong.

So doesn’t the President lead the US, isn’t *that* his role???

There is different meanings of lead. Being able to decide how the laws are carried out gives the president a lot of power. He also is the head of all the government agencies. So congress decides their funding, but he decides what they do with it within the bounds set by congress. Also, the president is the head of the military (but he isn’t supposed to be able to start a conflict without congress’s approval). Further, he popularity gives him power, because if members of congress agree with a popular president it can increase their popularity. But that is only because it will help them get re-elected, so they obviously aren’t going to help the president do something unpopular with the everyday people. The president’s power when it comes to enacting laws is more his power to make deals and use his popularity and role as the head and most public figure of his party to his advantage, rather than any enumerated powers set forth under the constitution. I practice this seems to give him a lot more power than the founding fathers apparently intended, although the President’s power has increased substantially lately.

Isn’t that what he is elected for as the chosen representative of the US populace? To run the country together with but effectively above the Congress on the behalf of its citizens?

No.

I thought the POTUS was the head of the Executive branch of government with Congress acting as a means through which he worked and also in part as a check on his power but…

Completely and totally wrong.

You make the POTUS sound so powerless & unable to actually effect anything – more a symbolic figurehead like our Australian Governor general as opposed to our Aussie Prime Minister – which doesn’t seem to be the case.

Prime ministers have a LOT more power than presidents because their is no separation between legislative and executive branches, but they are also much more vulnerable for the same reason. Presidential systems of government are totally different than parliamentary systems for that reason.

If there’s a clash between the Congress and the President as there was in the Clinton years doesn’t the President “out-rank” Congress or its individual top dog. (Speaker?) If it comes down to the crunch in the power struggle – can’t the President overcome Congress usually unless its an impeachment and even there – that hasn’t ever happened and only been a threat?

No, quite the opposite. When there is a clash between the President and congress the president becomes totally powerless, unable to get anything done. That is what happened during the Clinton years and that is what is happening now.

I don’t want or advocate dictatorship but the system has to be one that works with somebody ultimately in charge and responsible for seeing things happen (or not as the case may be.) That guy is supposed to be the President with Congress acting as a check on his power – right? Or wrong still?

Your ideas have absolutely no similarity to reality in any way whatsoever.

Please at least read the U.S. constitution, it is not very long and the powers are pretty clearly outlined there. You don’t even need to get into the amendments, just read the initial portion.

My understanding is that makes the difference between the sort of representative democracy where you elect a President (or, in my case, the Aussie Prime Minister) and a dictatorship.

In a dictatorship, you have a single man or party or general or somebody – ruling without needing the consent of the people and without holding free and fair elections.

In the USA voters (in purest distillated essence) vote to choose a President (& /via Congressmen and a whole melee of side mechanisms eg. electoral court) along with your Congress – but power is ultimately vested in the President through the will of the People (or at least voting citizens) and thus he *is* the one chosen to make things happen and run the nation.

Ignoring your totally wrong ideas about how the U.S. system of government works, the problem is that if the President has the powers you describe, he can easily turn it into a dictatorship. For instance he can choose supreme court justices that will rule him dictator, he can set laws that will allow him to manipulate elections, he can end all funding to congress so they can’t do any work, or use the federal police or military to block them from entering. A president with no checks on his power like you describe can in a very short period of time turn the U.S. into an effective dictatorship.

Similarly, in Australia we elect our Prime Minister via our local parliament and its representatives – Senators and Members of Parliament (MPs) – and thePM is effectively theman in charge. Again, there are checks like parliament and the Courts and the Constitution but, in essence, the PM is the one in charge. Until he gets voted out at the pleasure of us citizens and replaced by the opposition party’s leader. Or, alternatively overthrown and replaced from within his own party. (BTW. Both strong possiblities for us at the moment as our current PM, Kevin Rudd, is highly unpopular & facing a possible election loss later this year & also many in his party are calling for his replacement by his deputy.)

The fact that parliament can remove the executive from power at any time for any reason means it is a lot safer to give the executive power over congress. Our system makes it very hard to remove the president from power, and even that is only supposed to be used for “high crimes and misdemeanors”, not political differences (although that has been what it was used for the two instances where it has been tried, it has never once succeeded).

So the Presient as Iunderstood was teh one who could just make it happen & yet is NOTa dicttor because he was , inessence elected “king” and restricted by afew things suchas teh Cionstititon and elections yet still able to decide most things outside those limits. Incl., specifically, NASA and the future space exploration & development policy.

Completely and totally wrong.

Is this picture wrong somewhere and, if so, where?

Yes, your picture is wrong everywhere and in every way. It does not bear even the slightest resemblance to how things work.

If Congress clashes with the President – who usually wins?

Depends on who is trying to get things done. If the president wants to get things done, then congress wins 100% of the time. If congress wants to get things done, that depends on whether they have a 2/3 majority agreeing on the issue. If they don’t, which is usually the case, then the president can veto the bill. If they do, then they can overcome the veto. But usually of things don’t get done it is blamed on the president rather than congress (even though it is congress’s responsibility), so stonewalling is usually more advantageous for congress.

I know its hard but surely it’s something that could be tried if the President cared strongly enough to do so. Surely he’s somebody whose input (unlike mine! ) really matters!

You still say this? No, he can’t. Period, end of story. IT CANNOT BE DONE!

If he cares enough and fights hard enough then he should be able to get it through – shouldn’t he?