What is the Job of the US President?

[Steve R.]

The responsibility of the US President is to run the Executive Branch not to run the country. The US Constitution states that the President runs the Executive Branch. Running the country is not mentioned. But times were simpler then.

That having been said, things are never that black/white. Especially following 200+ years of growth; things can get quite muddy. Running the Executive Branch does have spill over effects that have consequences on the country. For example social security distributions and food stamp programs.

Nevertheless, the pendulum has swung way to far in the direction of the US President being responsible for actually running the country. The President, it appears no longer feels constrained with running an Executive Department such as Social Security, but now believes that he/she has the "duty" to manage all aspects of the country, even to the extent of micromanagement and promising to create jobs. The President can't create private sector jobs and the President should not be offering micromanagement incentives that supposedly foster economic growth.

If we are to truly have a free-market based system and not a defunct Soviet style planned economy, the office of President needs to be restored (as envisioned by the Constitution) to simply running the Executive Branch.

U.S. Constitution Online

Powers of the President of the United States

President of the United States

 

[Steve R.]

The President is the "Commander-in-Chief" of the military. However, the authority to declare war belongs to Congress. This is one of the sticky points if you are a strict Constitutionalist since the President has been using the military outside of the US without a deceleration of war. This appears to be another instance of Presidents aggrandizing personal power and circumventing Congress.

From President of the United States:

While the power to declare war is constitutionally vested in Congress, the president has ultimate responsibility for direction and disposition of the military. ... The framers of the Constitution took care to limit the president's powers regarding the military; ... Congress, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, must authorize any troop deployments longer than 60 days, although that process relies on triggering mechanisms that have never been employed, rendering it ineffectual. Additionally, Congress provides a check to presidential military power through its control over military spending and regulation. While historically presidents initiated the process for going to war, critics have charged that there have been several conflicts in which presidents did not get official declarations, including Theodore Roosevelt's military move into Panama in 1903, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the invasions of Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1990.

 

[MarkK]

"Running the Country" is not very specific language. When you drive to work, are you "driving to work" or are you "operating a motor vehicle?" The legal framework under which you drive a car says nothing about where you may and may not go, and in the real world, you never operate a motor vehicle without some destination in mind. Likewise, the legal framework under which the president "runs the executive" does not govern the value laden issues of his intended destination(s), which are what you might call, "running the country."

Your premise is flawed. "Running the country" is a subset of "running the execute" in the same way that "driving to work" is a subset of "operating a motor vehicle." Maybe you object to what the president is doing, but that is then a separate matter unrelated to the core of this argument.

 

[Steve R.]

I think most people would be shocked at how little power the President really has. We subscribe phantom powers to him such as social engineering and so on but his real powers are limited.

You are correct. Overtime, the persons holding the office of President have been promising the public that they can do this an that and accumulating power. Will Congress ever push back?

Maybe you object to what the president is doing, but that is then a separate matter unrelated to the core of this argument.

This debate question is a generic reference to how the office of President has been evolving over-time to become ever more involved in managing all aspects of the economy. When "big government" became fashionable, I don't know. It was way before this administration. As an example of how far this concept has gone, even Mitt Romney, as a Presidential candidate, made promises that promoted "big government". I pointed-out (criticized) how this trend in "big government" even crept into the Romney campaign back in August of 2012.

Romney spews the free-enterprise message and claims to want government out of the private sector. Yet he claims that he, as President, will create jobs! Of course the misleading assertion will be that he will foster an environment that would encourage job creation. Job creation results when there is unmet demand for goods/services, not by manipulating the tax code

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The U.S. Constitution spells out the powers of the President, but the problem is that Congress can add to the list sometimes.

 

[Fifty2One]

Presidents job seems to be as a target for everything that has gone wrong in America, everything that is going wrong in America and everything that will be going wrong in America. Secondary to that the job also seems to include being the scape goat for many other problems globally, and do photo ops at grade schools and mom'n'pop diners around the USA.

 

[Vassago]

Presidents job seems to be as a target for everything that has gone wrong in America, everything that is going wrong in America and everything that will be going wrong in America. Secondary to that the job also seems to include being the scape goat for many other problems globally, and do photo ops at grade schools and mom'n'pop diners around the USA.

Couldn't have said that better myself. Republicrat sheep keep pointing fingers at the current President with what's going on with our involvement with Syria. Do they really think it would have happened differently if Romney had won office? This is why I refuse to vote either Republicrat or Republicrat. More of the same corporate and bank owned control in this country with political puppets doing their every bidding. Carry on, sheep. Carry on.

 

[Fifty2One]

It would be a more democratic game if there were more then just two parties to go at each other's throats: hardly even worth playing the blame game with out variety.

Couldn't have said that better myself. Republicrat sheep keep pointing fingers at the current President with what's going on with our involvement with Syria. Do they really think it would have happened differently if Romney had won office? This is why I refuse to vote either Republicrat or Republicrat. More of the same corporate and bank owned control in this country with political puppets doing their every bidding. Carry on, sheep. Carry on.

 

[Steve R.]

This is why I refuse to vote either Republicrat or Republicrat.(emphasis added)

As Spoke would say "interesting".

Presidents job seems to be as a target for everything that has gone wrong in America, everything that is going wrong in America and everything that will be going wrong in America. Secondary to that the job also seems to include being the scape goat for many other problems globally, and do photo ops at grade schools and mom'n'pop diners around the USA.

Quite true, but there is also the converse, those running for President have no business promising to solve all these issues. Perhaps the most absurd promise was that by Romeny who promised to create jobs despite the fact that he said he was for getting the government out of the economy!!!

 

[ColinEssex]

From the UK perspective, the main job of the USA president, keeper of the faith, assumed leader of the free world is to free a turkey from death in November- whilst sending American men and women to death or horrific injuries in a war both illegal and unwanted.

Col

 

[Vassago]

As Spoke would say "interesting".

Quite true, but there is also the converse, those running for President have no business promising to solve all these issues. Perhaps the most absurd promise was that by Romeny who promised to create jobs despite the fact that he said he was for getting the government out of the economy!!!

IMO, that's what we have to choose from. Two parties, same donators, same people at the controls and pulling the strings. They pretend to get into these fueds over things that don't really matter, but in reality, it's to keep them both in power and prevent third parties from having a say. Look what happened at the last election. Ron Paul pushed from speaking at the Republican convention, although he had EVERY right to speak. The fact that they tried to ignore his votes during the primaries. Some states refused to even acknowledge while some purposely did with emphasis at how blatently arrogant it was to exclude him.

They did the same with Gary Johnson during the election.

 

[Steve R.]

Look what happened at the last election. Ron Paul pushed from speaking at the Republican convention, although he had EVERY right to speak. The fact that they tried to ignore his votes during the primaries. Some states refused to even acknowledge while some purposely did with emphasis at how blatently arrogant it was to exclude him. ... They did the same with Gary Johnson during the election.

Quite true. Only Ron Paul proposed to reduce the size of government and restore liberty.

 

[Fifty2One]

Does not seem too practical or democratic or intelligent only having two political parties...

IMO, that's what we have to choose from. Two parties, same donators, same people at the controls and pulling the strings. They pretend to get into these fueds over things that don't really matter, but in reality, it's to keep them both in power and prevent third parties from having a say. Look what happened at the last election. Ron Paul pushed from speaking at the Republican convention, although he had EVERY right to speak. The fact that they tried to ignore his votes during the primaries. Some states refused to even acknowledge while some purposely did with emphasis at how blatently arrogant it was to exclude him.

They did the same with Gary Johnson during the election.

 

[Steve R.]

Does not seem too practical or democratic or intelligent only having two political parties...

There is no way to "force" having more than two parties. The US actually has many parties, the issue is that these (lesser) parties are ignored by the media. Take the Libertarian Party, they were unconscionably exuded from the presidential debates.

There is a listing of some of the lesser parties in this article: United States presidential election, 2012

The Republican Party is currently experiencing a "civil-war" between the old line (Romney, McCain) and those who are more libertarian (Rand Paul, Gary Johnson). If the Republican Party is schizophrenic would that count as two parties?