Do US presidents/governors have too much power?

M

Montez

So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I suppose this thought has always been in the back of my mind, but recently I've been thinking about it more and more. In Massachusetts, the state senate is close to passing a bill that would allow the sale of syringes over the counter; the purpose of this, for those who don't know, is to help prevent the spread of HIV, hepatitis and other diseases among drug users, and through that prevent the spread of it among the rest of the population. 47 other states already do this. Our governor is against it because he thinks it will promote drug use (lol - like a normal citizen is going to start using herion because they can buy a needle. Just like everyone who doesn't like drugs is now a chronic pothead because you can buy rolling papers in convience stores, right?), and will likely veto it if the senate does pass it.

It seems ridiculous to me that in a democratic society, in this day and age, that one person has the power to negate a majority decision of the people, or a majority decision of the people's representatives rather, or that one person is "in charge" of an entire state. Similarly, it seems ridiculous that one person has control over the entire executive branch of our country's government. In the judicial and legislative branches there are a group of people deciding; supreme court, senate, congress, state senates, state supreme court, etc. So why do we entrust one person with executive power? Isn't it anti-democratic to have a checks and balances system where one man has as much power as a group of a dozen or of a hundred or more? I have to think that the interests of the people would be better served by having less centralized power in the executive branch, and that it would provide a firmer base of support for our government.

So what do you think? Would this actually improve things, or would it just end up being a morass of beaurocracy? Is there any real advantage to having one person in charge of everything, when there is always a huge minority of the country that opposes everything they do?
 
Can't the State Senate over-ride the veto in Massachusetts? Is either the needed super-majority or the mechanism lacking?
 
They can override the veto by 2/3rds majority, but I still think it's ridiculous that one person has that power. Especially when the guy isn't even from this state and only ran for governor in order to fill out his resume to eventually run for some higher office.
 
AFAIK the Founder's intention was to make a weak executive. But the Whisky Rebellion showed the error of that. I think that it is important to have a single person in charge of one branch of a multi-branch government to clearly voice the opinion of the people to the sometimes muddied voice coming from the concensus of congress or the court.

Besides, you can argue the opposite, that the Chief Executive is indeeed subject to and providing for the will of the people via four year election cycles.

Tough day Montez?
 
Murdoch said:
Tough day Montez?
Click to expand...

Nah, I just decided recently that I should start reading the news and keeping up with current events again, and almost everything I read just ends up aggravating and annoying me.
 
Welcome to the wonderful world of politics.

Also, the governor is relatively close to the people. Atleast it's not a court becoming countermajoritarian.

Even then, the super majority (if there is one) can override this, assuming that MA has a similar system regarding veto power that the rest of the country has.
 
You ought to petition to have the US reorganized so that all decisions can be overridden by the Supreme Soviet.
 
Graz'zt said:
You ought to petition to have the US reorganized so that all decisions can be overridden by the Supreme Soviet.
Click to expand...

Anarcho-Syndicalism, please?

Am I counter-revolutionary or what?
 
Anarcho-syndicalists were sworn enemies of the Supreme Soviet, which would be above all conventional US governing bodies under Ratty's system. During the Spanish Civil War it was the Communists who actually halted the revolutionary changes, actually under the orders of the Supreme Soviet if I remember correctly. So you are only amusing in regard to the extent of your ignorance.


I don't like the concentration of power in general, but I suppose it is necessary in some extreme situations. The buck has to stop somewhere and a decision made, especially during war or a crisis where hesitation can lead to disaster. For times of peace, consensus should be reached by legislative bodies. The problem can then be that the leader has appointed people to the pivotal positions and already has the numbers to do what he wants. At least there would be some protection from the 'protection'.
 
montez, if you think thats bad, read up on the electoral college...

im pretty sure its only 3 states that impose penalties, but when representatives submit their votes, they do not have to vote as to the popular vote from their state.
 
Elections are rigged by The Freemasons. Everyone knows that.... :roll:
 
TorontRayne said:
Elections are rigged by The Freemasons. Everyone knows that.... :roll:
Click to expand...
The "Freemason"s are controlled by the secret Atlantean government.

Everyone knows that ... :roll:
 
Not really. For all the prestige they have, the President is in some ways less powerful then a common PM.

And the Atlanteans are controlled by Majestic 12. Duh.
 
Only by the leave of the Purple Clan.*

* Fahrenheit rocks, except for the last half hour, when everything goes pear shaped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top