change of attitude to the concept PRESIDENT

[girl_from_russia]

I am interested to know how the concept PRESIDENT has changed over centuries. How has the attitude to PRESIDENCY changed?

[htuttle]

1. Early on, they were worried about it turning into a type of 'king'

Originally, the Vice President was the second highest vote getter -- not someone who ran on a ticket with the President -- so it was likely that the President and VP were competitors from different parties. This ended up putting a 'watchdog' right in the white house (or close to it).

The President was also not as powerful as they are today (you don't hear of things like 'Executive Orders' back in the early 1800s, for example).

Nowdays, people seem to have gotten comfortable with the idea of an Imperial Presidency, unfortunately.

[girl_from_russia]

4. What might be

the future of this concept then? How is it likely to develop?

[bryant69]

2. The executive branch was purposfully made weak

Because of fears of a monarchy. However, as time went by, the government seemed to require a stronger executive. Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt all expanded the power and the scope of presidential power. Now the President is the paramount branch, although the Congress and the Courts still have considerable power as well.

Bryant

Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[girl_from_russia]

5. Oh, what might

be the consequences?

[leveymg]

3. Time to Get Back to an "Original Intent" Presidency

If Chimpboy doesn't kill the institution altogether.

Maybe a few principled conservatives would see the logic in this, inasmuch as they're always calling for that same thing with the judiciary.

Let's make a deal?:bounce:

[girl_from_russia]

6. Sorry, but

what do you mean by the "Original Intent" Presidency?

[leveymg]

7. Conservative jurists and scholars often attack the Court's expansions

of civil and legal rights since the 1950s as contrary to the "original intent" of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as written in the late 1700s. Originally, at the start of the American republic, civil rights were limited to white, male, property-owners.

Some conservatives take a very limited view of the role of the courts in expanding civil liberties. They thus oppose progressive decisions of the federal courts that have expanded civil liberties. Conservatives attack these decisions as unconstitutional "judge-made rights" or "judge-made law". They argue that only Congress can make laws, therefore, in the eyes of conservatives, federal Judges exceed their proper powers when courts recognize rights that weren't first created by laws made by the legislators.

Conservatives have attacked major court decisions that recognized significant rights, such as the right to abortion (Roe v Wade, 1974), the rights of criminal defendants (the Gideon and Miranda decisions of the 1960s), and rights for minorities to enjoy equal access to public education (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954.) Today, they are also angered by the actions of some courts extending civil rights, such as marriage, and other legal protections to gays.

I was taking liberty with the term "original intent" and applying it ironically to the expansion of Presidential powers that occurred during the same period.