How much power does the President really have?

[kentuck]

When he took office, did he have the choice to choose who he wanted in his Cabinet? Or was he pulled aside and told that "these are the people you need to solve these problems"? For example, Tim Geithner and General Petraeus? What relationship did the President have with these people before he was sworn in?

Is the President anymore than a figurehead in our present system of government? Sometimes I wonder?

Our first impulse is to say, "Of course, the President can choose who he wants in his Cabinet". But can he really?

Are the powers that be the ones that are calling the shots? The international financiers? The big bankers? Can the President over-ride their decisions?

Is the President anymore than a spokesman for these financiers? How much power does the President hold, other than on the bully pulpit? If he strays too far from the message of the powers that be, is he physically threatened? John Kennedy tried that strategy.

I wonder?

Nonsense! Most people will say. He is the President. We elected him to "lead". He could have gone against the big banks, if he had wanted. He could have vetoed the wishes of the military complex if he had wanted. He could have chosen whomever he wanted to be Secretary of the Treasury. It was his decision to make.

We have our ideas and impressions about how the Presidency works. We see him as all-powerful in the decisions that are made. He can end the wars tomorrow, if he wants. He can save Medicare and veto anything that he disagrees with. He can raise taxes on the wealthy, all by himself. But, can he?

.

[malaise]

1. A damn good question

Rec

[Ineeda]

2. Another example is Gitmo.

The POTUS issues an executive order but congress refuses to fund the closing. "He" fails to keep a campaign promise. I think there are many other examples of his efforts being thwarted. Frustrating as hell for we who still believe he has the best intentions for our country.

[TheKentuckian]

3. When was his veto overridden? I don't think legal limitations are what the OP is talking about.

He is asking if the President is just a figurehead playing errand boy for much more powerful interests than Congress.
Is the President just a toy for the ownership and MIC?

[Ineeda]

18. what veto?

IIRC, he signed an executive order to close Gitmo. Congress would not fund it. Dead in the water. There was no bill to veto.

[TheKentuckian]

20. He signed the law limiting his administrations ability to transfer the prisoners and that denied

funding for trials.

Congress doesn't piece meal fund every Federal trial and prisoner. These folks had to be carved out and that required legislation which in turn could be vetoed.

Funding Obama's bullshit Gitmo north had absolutely nothing to do with relocating prisoners or trials without legislation.
Running this argument is counter-productive for Obama loyalists because it proves the whole closing Git mo deal was a farce. He sought to relocate it in a re-branding effort rather than just coming right in and reassigning these people, releasing those that could not be put on trial, and getting trial dates for those he could. Instead he sought to thread the political needle accepting the bogus tribunals in some cases, accepting indefinite detention in a few others, and accepting that these particular criminals needed their own site.

Obama lied about any effort to close Gitmo, his agenda was to relocate it and by seeking that agenda he boxed himself and our justice system in. Now we are serial violators of our own justice system and have made shitting on the rule of law a bipartisan effort.

"They would not fund" Obama's uniquely American plan but he didn't have to ask for funding if he was trying to move the folks to a new prison for them. That is where the pooch got screwed and if you folks would accept that and stop hiding behind a failed attempt to continue to shit on the constitution and hundreds of years of civil liberties advances going back to the Magna Carta and beyond then we'd have better discussions.

[vi5]

4. Oh brother. Really?

I've noticed recently there is an increased frequency of people and blatantly pointing out that the policies we are getting, and the policies that the president is either outright supporting or giving in on match the policies and positions of most if not all of the people that he chose to have in his cabinet.

People have succeeded so far in pinning every major loss, or capitulation on some other entity or some other person or some other system or basically just anything or anyone other than the president.

But now that people are finally pointing out "Hmmm...wow. These policies we're getting that are harming the country and go against what the president supposedly wanted are suspiciously close to and match many of the positions of his advisers? Could that be a coincidence" this is the excuse that's going to be used? That even picking his advisers isn't something he has power over?

Jesus effing Christ. So now NOTHING is his fault? Nothing is his doing? Nothing is his responsibility?

BS. The same people now advocating this line of "Oh the president just doesn't have any power." thinking are also the ones that at the slightest sign of "victory" (and believe me I use that term loosely) will be the ones on here crowing about how it's because of the presidents wonderful skills and insight and leadership.

[Solomon]

5. The president is the saleman for the powers that be.

I don't think he gets to pick important members of his cabinet except that he might be able to pick from a class of individuals but not just anybody he wants to put there. In fact, I think those things are dome before the deal is sealed.

[raccoon]

6. Well said! C'mon, let's get this on Greatest!

"Are the powers that be the ones that are calling the shots? The international financiers? The big bankers? Can the President over-ride their decisions?"

IMO: Yes, yes, yes, no.

[H2O Man]

7. Good question.

In my opinion, the position allows a limited amount of opportunity to do good, and a huge space for doing bad. That sounds simplistic, I know, but I think it is not only accurate, but essential to understand.

[Poll_Blind]

8. Bush showed me exactly how much power a President has at their fingertips.

Remember, this is coming off of Clinton that Bush entered the picture. If the case is to be made that presidents have no real power then I would challenge that assertion with the Clinton era. Obviously Clinton wasn't as Left as I'd like but, of course, he was day and night difference with Bush.

Which would not be the case if the Presidency had no power.

Ergo, President Obama has the power to change things with the same level of forcefulness and effectiveness as did Bush and as did Clinton and those who came before him.

PB

[Solomon]

9. Apparently you see no difference between exercising power

on behalf of the elites, and exercising power against them.

Two very different propositions.

[Poll_Blind]

10. Which is why I made a point to bring up Clinton, before him.

If a person is going to subscribe to the idea that the president wields no or little actual power, that's fine. But to be convincing, I think, they have to explore a little further back and look at a Democratic president like Clinton who, while not my idea of a perfect Liberal, still was not "forced" into continual, unending "bipartisanship" (which I guess is what we're calling it these days).

:shrug:

PB

[EOTE]

13. Clinton had a lot of "bipartisanship" of his own.

Which brought us such wonderful gems as the Telecom Act of '96, NAFTA and Welfare Reform.

[Poll_Blind]

15. I didn't say that he didn't. The specific question at hand (as I see it) is...

..."How much power does the president really wield?" I would say, quite a lot. If the ultimate question of the thread was "How much of a Liberal was President Clinton", I'd feel it more important to explore some of the many points on which I disagreed with him about.

The way I see it, those who don't believe that the Presidency yields much power probably see Democratic presidents in a pair of Chinese Finger Cuffs, where yielding one way only is allowed, the other way blocked. While I have my feelings about that, I have to recognize that the evidence itself doesn't support that.

And certainly in Obama's case, one can't use this concept of shadowy control to explain away everything.

Again, if the model worked I'd probably adopt it. But I don't think it does.

PB

[EOTE]

16. I think if Clinton really had "quite a lot" of power, the Telecom Act wouldn't have passed.

I blame that for much of the clusterfuck we're involved in now. Any good he did do is wiped out by its passage. I really don't know how much power the president has, and I'm certainly not letting my belief in these shadowy figures reduce my criticism for Obama. No matter what I believe, the buck stops with him. So I'm going to continue to criticize the president when he lets me down (which is often), but in the back of my mind, I wonder if many of these decisions he's making are with a metaphorical gun to his head.

[Obamanaut]

11. Not enough to close Guantanamo or bring the troops home from

Iraq, the various -stan suffixed counties, or anywhere else people are being bombed.

[upi402]

12. How much did BushCo have

They were selected - not elected - and Republicans dominated in actions ,,, not just platitudes and betrayal.

[Imagevision]

14. Obama had enough power to tell scientists to back off on BP. oils spills

[raccoon]

17. Kick. nt

[quaker bill]

19. He can only veto or sign whole bills

and only the bills the congress hands him in whatever form they deliver them. He does not get to dissect them and only veto the bad stuff.

The President does not write tax law. The House of Representatives does that originally, the Senate can concur, ammend, or reject. The ammendment can be a "strike all" replacement.

The President can issue executive orders and findings within the law. Executive orders and direct how a law is implemented and a finding can direct how the language of a law is to be interpreted and enforced. Laws come from congress and are signed by the President to become law. Executive orders and findings are acts under the law taken toward its implementation administratively.

In theory the President can choose his cabinet, but cabinet members are subject to ratification by the Senate. They can approve, reject, or delay action on any appointment (except recess appointments, which have a limited term). The President can nominate anyone he likes, but if the choice does not make it past the Senate, the position is not filled (or if filled by recess appointment only for a short time).

We did not want dictators, so the founders set limits on executive power.

[TheKentuckian]

21. Who said he had a line item veto? I said he could veto and stand for the constitution

and the rule of law.

If they override then they override but you make them do it or give you a "clean" bill.

Same deal with a cabinet. You nominate who you want and if they don't get approved you nominate someone else you want until you get someone through.