[AATW]

If it was left to Congress they would just argue about it and have a hard time getting the required votes and essentially do nothing.

That depends on the make up of Congress. Right now in the UK Labour have a strong majority. Which means they can basically do what they want unless a significant number of their MPs rebel. But they still have to go through the process and allow parliament to debate things before anything becomes law. I can see that your system is more efficient but the trade-off is the President can do things unilaterally which doesn't feel right in a democracy. Yes yes, people voted for him to be President but they also voted for a government which should provide some checks and balances.

Allowing the US President great freedom to act, react, and dictate policy is partly why the US is the richest and most powerful country on earth.

No it isn't.

This is also why the English Crown has lost an incredible amount of world power after the Monarchy decided to stop governing directly and leave most things to democracy.

No it isn't.

[DuncanDoenitz]

Isn't it basically the same in all of the (what we refer to as Western) democracies?  USA, UK, Germany, France etc. 

All have 3 branches of government;

Legislature; (Parliament, Congress, Bundestag etc).  A large elected assembly which, on behalf of the People, decides what laws and constitutional changes are necessary. 

Executive; A smaller body of elected or co-opted individuals who make day-to-day decisions and decide what measures are to be taken to better promote the country's prosperity, security and well-being.  The Executive is generally a Cabinet, with varying amounts of emphasis placed on the power of its leader, President or Prime Minister.  The rule governing all Executive branches is that all their power comes from The Parliament or Congress, and they must act within existing laws and National Constitution.  If they can't do this, they might propose legislation which must then be passed by the Legislature before they can execute it.   

Judiciary; independant of the other 2 branches determines whether the law is being obeyed. 

Presumably, in the case of Trump's Executive Orders concerning DEI, Tarrifs and whatnot, he must already have that power through existing legislation or the Constitution.  Where he comes unstuck is when he tries to give things which are not his to give, such as the birthright thing (14th Amdt?) when the Judiciary steps on the brake pedal. 

Regarding the UK Crown's loss of power, Tom is having a laugh; it's just a National 1000-year Lifecycle thing.  The European nations went through the whole power/colonisation thing hundreds of years ago.  Africa, Indian subcontinent, Far East and America itself were undeveloped, disorganised and easy pickings for Europe to invade, colonise, subjugate and expoilt; that's where the money came from, Officer. 

A few hundred years later, the Age of Reason and our benevolent Empires release the, now cultivated, savages to make their own decisions, elect their own parliaments and get on with life.  Are we less powerful?  We're certainly less wealthy, now we are spreading the goodness and the money was never really ours anyway. 

The problem with the USA, and Trump in particular is that they came late to the game.  Whilst everyone else is letting their colonies fly free, Trump is still in the mindset of 15th Century Europe and trying to colonise Mexico, Canada and Greenland. 

[Tom Bishop]

But they still have to go through the process and allow parliament to debate things before anything becomes law. I can see that your system is more efficient but the trade-off is the President can do things unilaterally which doesn't feel right in a democracy.

It is possible to have too much democracy. Learn more history. The Ancient Greeks experimented with direct democracy and failed. They were asking its people to vote on and decide directly on questions such as "Should we go to war with Sparta?" with disastrous results. A King is needed to act as the commander, but it needs to be an elected king. In the US this elected king is called the President.

[AATW]

Learn more history.

Another irony-meter explodes...

The Ancient Greeks experimented with direct democracy and failed. They were asking people to vote on and decide directly on questions such as "Should we go to war with Sparta?"

I guess you're talking about a referendum. I have no issue with the idea that those should be used sparingly, and they mostly are. The Brexit thing was a dumpster fire - whatever side of that debate people are on, it was not a decision arrived at by a well educated and informed population who knew and understood all the issues involved. Which is why you have a government. But you have a government, not a king or emperor. Were you happy with the last 4 years of Biden as an "elected king"? That worked well, did it? You need some checks and balances and that's why you have a government.

[Action80]

There is adequate balance in the three-body constitutional republic system present in the US. The only problem is the hijacking that occurred on Jekyll Island and the follow-up ops taking place with the Ford/Dulles/Bush/Roosevelt/Prescott families.

[Lord Dave]

There is adequate balance in the three-body constitutional republic system present in the US. The only problem is the hijacking that occurred on Jekyll Island and the follow-up ops taking place with the Ford/Dulles/Bush/Roosevelt/Prescott families.

.there is.
Unless one party owns all three bodies.  Then... Not so much.

[Action80]

The issue of parties is overstated.

Neither have demonstrated fundamental adherence to the tenets commonly cited as reasons for their existence.

Again, the US as a constitutional republic has not existed since 1916.

I do not know the actual "truth" regarding the "current" tariff decisions, but if Trump is legitimate, then going back to tariffs as the method for funding the US government is the way to do it. The US saw its greatest period of national wealth from the 1870's to the mid 1910's. That was when a progressive income tax was non-existent and tariffs were funding the US government.

Once the 16th Amendment was forced upon the country, the US was essentially doomed to follow Marxism, a progressive income tax being one of Marx's fundamental positions in The Communist Manifesto.

[Tom Bishop]

I guess you're talking about a referendum. I have no issue with the idea that those should be used sparingly, and they mostly are. The Brexit thing was a dumpster fire - whatever side of that debate people are on, it was not a decision arrived at by a well educated and informed population who knew and understood all the issues involved. Which is why you have a government.

I don't see any proof that representative experts are better. Those experts are one one side or the other. There is no such thing as an expert impartial to politics. In your case you have too many liberal 'experts'. If experts are needed any lawyer or politician has the ability to cite experts. They are not actually directly needed to make decisions in government.

In the case of Brexit, that happened to be a good thing. The public removed itself from burdensome regulations and monetary obligations. It's not UK's responsibility to support other countries, and neither is it America's responsibility to support you. Get your own military and stop begging me like a vagrant.

But you have a government, not a king or emperor. Were you happy with the last 4 years of Biden as an "elected king"? That worked well, did it? You need some checks and balances and that's why you have a government.

The fact that the four years of incompetence has ended shows that the system works. Other countries are not as dynamic and have permanent incompetence. America has an ability to shift radically and dynamically, while the UK is too obsessed with democracy to see its pitfalls. The UK Monarch still refuses to take a commanding lead to bring his nation to greatness, which is why you can't and won't get anything done.

[AATW]

I don't see any proof that representative experts are better.

I would have thought that it's pretty self evident that laws which affect the citizens of an entire country should be made by a group rather than an individual.
Pretty much every country has moved away from dictators or kings towards some form of representative democracy.
Societies are much more complex than they were when a king ran things, no one person can understand enough about it all to make informed decisions. That's why you have different departments in charge of different areas.
As for "one side of the other", that's a bit of a US problem where your population and government are so polarised between the two sides.
Things aren't much better here although I don't think the division is quite so extreme.

The fact that the four years of incompetence has ended shows that the system works.

You're now talking about a different system - one where there are regular elections which can change the government if the population decides they want to change it.
We have that too, you know. That's not some unique feature of US democracy, most democracies have that. We changed our government last year.
Some would say we just changed from one lot of incompetents to a different one, but that's a different issue.

We have our problems, certainly, but we're the 6th biggest economy in the world which given by population we're just outside the top 20 in the world we're doing OK.

[Tom Bishop]

I would have thought that it's pretty self evident that laws which affect the citizens of an entire country should be made by a group rather than an individual.

Actually it is self evident to me that experts and politicians endlessly argue with each other. If you argue and create division then you get nothing done. The US Congress and the UK Parliament are regularly criticized for this. Luckily for America Congress's power is limited we have an attentive commander named Donald Trump who has the power to get many things done.

The US President has a system which has invested trillions in giving him the best in foreign and domestic intelligence. The President has access to top strategists, the top experts, has his own staff and departments which make recommendations for executive actions for specific sectors, and it is laughable to characterize the President's actions as the result of a single person. Trump did not solely come up with the dozens of Executive Orders he has signed so far.

Instead of whining about Trump and stating falsities you should focus on your own country.

[honk]

Okay, there's a lot of wildly incorrect stuff being posted here. No, the president is not a king or dictator, nor were they ever intended to be. Avoiding having a single ruler with overwhelming power is arguably the one issue that every single one of the Founding Fathers were agreed upon. We have separation of powers, and Congress has several means at its disposal to check the executive branch. They are currently choosing to exercise none of them.

Personally, I think a strong case to impeach Trump could be made over his essential abdication of his office to a group of unelected oligarchs and ideologues. The president has the right to choose their advisors and listen to them, certainly, but I'd argue that he doesn't have the right to let them govern in his stead, which is clearly what's going on right now. It's very obvious that Trump has had no input or involvement in planning the orders he's been obediently signing off on, and he doesn't seem to be involved in any way with the current systematic crippling of the federal government. Trump was the one elected president, not Elon Musk. If he doesn't want to do the job anymore, then there's a line of succession that needs to be followed.

[markjo]

Personally, I think a strong case to impeach Trump could be made over his essential abdication of his office to a group of unelected oligarchs and ideologues.

Unfortunately, the notion of removing Trump by either impeachment or the 25th amendment is solidly in the realm of wishful thinking.  Remember his claim that he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and not lose any support?  Well, now he's looking to shoot the whole country and he still won't lose any support.

[Lord Dave]

Soo.... Trump wants to do a repeat of the Indians and forcefully relocate them while taking their land... To the Gaza Strip.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/2/5/trump-says-us-will-take-over-and-own-gaza-in-redevelopment-plan

I've thought about it myself but more of a "We own it but we're not kicking anyone out"
Or "no one is gonna live there."

But "we'll kick out the Palestinians and make it a resort for everyone else" is just... Very American.

[Tom Bishop]

Okay, there's a lot of wildly incorrect stuff being posted here. No, the president is not a king

Then why does the President have the power to assassinate US Citizens at will?

See: The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially

The Supreme Court today ruled that presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for official acts, then contended that pressuring the vice president and the Department of Justice to overthrow the government was an “official act,” then said that talking to advisers or making public statements are “official acts” as well, and then determined that evidence of what presidents say and do cannot be used against them to establish that their acts are “unofficial.”

If the US President can murder a US Citizen then he obviously has great king-like power. The president is at the seat of power which executes justice, and the Supreme Court has ruled that he is therefore above the law, just as a king is. If he breaks some law in actions, it doesn't matter. Since he himself is responsible for enforcing the law, the laws do not apply to him.

The President is the country's Commander in Chief, and is an executor of justice above the law, very similar to the role of a medieval king. The courts can make laws, but they don't apply to him. The courts are therefore inferior entities meant for normal citizens, not the President who is superior.

You guys will have a tough time doing anything against Donald Trump, so it's probably best to quit whining about it.

[Lord Dave]

Okay, there's a lot of wildly incorrect stuff being posted here. No, the president is not a king

Then why does the President have the power to assassinate US Citizens at will?

See: The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially

The Supreme Court today ruled that presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for official acts, then contended that pressuring the vice president and the Department of Justice to overthrow the government was an “official act,” then said that talking to advisers or making public statements are “official acts” as well, and then determined that evidence of what presidents say and do cannot be used against them to establish that their acts are “unofficial.”

If the US President can murder a US Citizen then he obviously has great king-like power. The president is at the seat of power which executes justice, and the Supreme Court has ruled that he is therefore above the law, just as a king is. If he breaks some law in actions, it doesn't matter. Since he himself is responsible for enforcing the law, the laws do not apply to him.

The President is the country's Commander in Chief, and is an executor of justice above the law, very similar to the role of a medieval king. The courts can make laws, but they don't apply to him. The courts are therefore inferior entities meant for normal citizens, not the President who is superior.

You guys will have a tough time doing anything against Donald Trump, so it's probably best to quit whining about it.

And yet he wasn't able to freeze funds.  The courts stopped him.

[Tom Bishop]

And yet he wasn't able to freeze funds.  The courts stopped him.

The President can respect that decision, or not. Since the President is responsible for enforcing the order, he can simply tell his law enforcers not to enforce it.

There are numerous examples of the executive branch declining to enforce laws and orders, such as the declining to enforce and prosecute marijuana laws. The executive branch said that they won't enforce it, with the result that people now take it and grow it at will and treat it as legal. This is a well known example of the executive giving the finger to the courts, and a demonstration that he is above the laws.

This is also why the President has unlimited pardon power. If a judge issues an order that someone is to be imprisoned or fined, the President can choose not to enforce it and let the person go free. Here we have an example that has been exercised many times in the past that the President can ignore direct court orders, beyond just ignoring laws. He is truly above the courts.

[Action80]

Dear President Trump,

I encourage you not to trust the CIA's announcement that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in Wuhan.

It is more likely the virus was engineered in a Ukrainian biological lab, under the direction of the Biden family.

Thank you,

Action80

[Lord Dave]

And yet he wasn't able to freeze funds.  The courts stopped him.

The President can respect that decision, or not. Since the President is responsible for enforcing the order, he can simply tell his law enforcers not to enforce it.

There are numerous examples of the executive branch declining to enforce laws and orders, such as the declining to enforce and prosecute marijuana laws. The executive branch said that they won't enforce it, with the result that people now take it and grow it at will and treat it as legal. This is a well known example of the executive giving the finger to the courts, and a demonstration that he is above the laws.

This is also why the President has unlimited pardon power. If a judge issues an order that someone is to be imprisoned or fined, the President can choose not to enforce it and let the person go free. Here we have an example that has been exercised many times in the past that the President can ignore direct court orders, beyond just ignoring laws. He is truly above the courts.

Being free from punishment is not the same as being allowed to do something.

[Tom Bishop]

Since the President is clearly above the powers of other branches a more accurate statement is that he provides the permission for his actions. The President is the check against the other branches, not vice-versa. You guys have that backwards.

Another example is the recent "TikTok ban". It was passed legally by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. TikTok went offline for a while and then it was brought back online by internet telecommunication companies after declarations from Trump. Trump issued statements and an EO that he will put the orders for the TikTok ban on pause and not uphold it, demonstrating that he is above those powers and can simply ignore the orders.

The best Congress can do is impeach him and give him that label, but whether they have the power to actually forcefully remove him against his will is in debate since it has never been done and the President has an encompassing enforcement power that nullifies other branches. In fact, the article I posted a couple of posts back says that he can overturn or overthrow Congress in his official capacity without fear of arrest. It is interesting to speculate about the limits of the President's vast power, but it is nonetheless very clear that he is incredibly powerful in likeness to a king.

[Lord Dave]

Since the President is clearly above the powers of other branches a more accurate statement is that he provides the permission for his actions. The President is the check against the other branches, not vice-versa. You guys have that backwards.

Another example is the recent "TikTok ban". It was passed legally by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. TikTok went offline for a while and then it was brought back on line by internet telecommunication companies after declarations from Trump. Trump issued statements and an EO that he will put the orders for the TikTok ban on pause and not uphold it, demonstrating that he is above those powers and can simply ignore the orders.

The best Congress can do is impeach him and give him that label, but whether they have the power to actually forcefully remove him against his will is in debate since it has never been done and the President clearly has an encompassing enforcement power that nullifies other branches. In fact, the article I posted a couple of posts back says that he can overturn or overthrow Congress in his official capacity without fear of arrest. It is interesting to speculate about the limits of the President's vast power, but it is nonetheless very clear that he is incredibly powerful in likeness to a king.

So he can lawfully rig an election.

But why did Trump leave office?  Surely he could have just not left.