Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A question about Constitutional law and the executive branch.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 12:56 AM
Original message
A question about Constitutional law and the executive branch.
I'm a bit embarrassed to ask this as it reveals my ignorance of our own Constitutional laws and government (a subject that is apparently well known to Obama). I can recall, at age 20 squirming in my seat during my government classes and anything I did retain long enough to pass the test, is long gone from my memory. So I'll ask it anyway, as it might at least lead to an interesting discussion. I know that other countries' presidents/executive branches have at various times dissolved some portion of their governments (parliament, cabinets, etc), and I wonder if our president holds that same power? I don't recall it ever happening, so I'm guessing that our constitutional checks and balances would not allow for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Veritas_et_Aequitas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. Nope. We're not a Parliamentary democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Davis_X_Machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 01:06 AM
Response to Original message
2. No.
Edited on Tue Jan-06-09 01:07 AM by Davis_X_Machina
Which is peculiarly American.

The Legislature is supreme. It is where the power ceded by We The People reposes.

It can impeach a President, but the executive cannot dissolve it and call for new elections.
It can impeach justices, also, but originally the Judiciary could not invalidate laws.

Nowadays, the Supreme Court can declare statutes unconstitutional, that's a derived power (cf. Marbury v. Madison) that the Court essentially created, and is agreed to exist, because it is useful, not because it is specifically granted by the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Thanks! ..n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanctified Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 01:17 AM
Response to Original message
3. Thankfully no. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
4. I found this pretty interesting. Didn't realize just how much the exec. branch has changed since
Edited on Tue Jan-06-09 01:51 AM by Dover
its inception:



Executive Office of the President

The Executive Office of the President is not a single office or department, but a collection of agencies that are all directly responsible for helping the president to deal with Congress and manage the larger executive branch. Specific elements have changed over the years; currently, the EOP consists of nine separate divisions: the White House Office, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Council of Economic Advisers, National Security Council (NSC), Office of Policy Development, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Office of Administration.

In contrast to modern presidents, early presidents had few people to help them, because the Constitution contained no specific provision or allowance for presidential staff. As a result, presidents became overworked and exhausted. Thomas Jefferson, for example, wrote that the presidency "brings nothing but unceasing drudgery and daily loss of friends." In many cases, presidents used their own money to hire their sons, nephews, or in-laws to work as clerks or secretaries. In 1825, President James Monroe requested that Congress appropriate funds for presidential staff, but Congress was unwilling to spend the money. It was not until 1857 that Congress approved a specific appropriation for the president to hire a private secretary. Throughout the rest of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Congress slowly appropriated more money for presidential staff, allowing the president to hire a greater number of secretaries, clerks, and other assistants, such as stenographers and messengers.

The crisis of the Great Depression in the 1930s created a need for the presidential staff to be fundamentally reorganized and expanded. Whereas presidents of the nineteenth century had functioned with very limited powers, Franklin D. Roosevelt took on a much stronger role, developing his collection of New Deal programs to try to grapple with the tremendous social and economic problems facing the country. These programs resulted in a much larger and more complex federal bureaucracy that was difficult to manage, leading Roosevelt to create the Committee on Administrative Management, popularly known as the Brownlow Committee. Headed by Louis Brownlow, the task of the Brownlow Committee was to study the organization of the executive branch and to suggest solutions to the problem of administrative management.

The Brownlow report, completed in 1937, made several recommendations, including the creation of the Executive Office of the President, which would bring together agencies concerned with executive branch activities, such as budgeting, efficiency, personnel, and planning. Though Congress rejected other proposals contained in the Brownlow report, it approved the creation of the EOP, by passing the Reorganization Act in April 1939 (3 U.S.C.A. § 106, 31 U.S.C.A. §§ 701, 1101). As a result, key managerial agencies, such as the Bureau of the Budget and the National Resources Planning Board, were moved into the EOP; the benefit of this move was that crucial management functions could be performed by staff working directly under the president, completing the routine tasks necessary for the government to function. Though the specific elements of the EOP have changed since Roosevelt's presidency, the Brownlow report laid the foundations for the basic administrative structure that allows presidents to manage the numerous and diverse parts of the executive branch.

The Cabinet and Executive Departments

The cabinet consists of the president, the vice president, the heads of the fourteen executive departments, and any other government officials the president wishes to include, such as the head of the OMB or the head of the NSC. In theory, cabinet members are supposed to serve as expert advisers to the president, but in practice, they more often operate as advocates for their department and are seldom involved in actual presidential decision making.

The Constitution makes no specific reference to a president's cabinet; rather, the cabinet is an institution that has evolved over the years. The first executive departments (the Departments of State, War, and the Treasury) were created in 1789 by Washington, who frequently held conferences with their heads (Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Alexander Hamilton, respectively). By 1793, James Madison was using the termcabinet to refer to these conferences. The name and the institution stuck, and the cabinet became a fixed element of the executive branch.

Presidents have used their cabinets in widely different ways. In the nineteenth century, cabinet appointments were often made for political reasons, rather than because a president knew or trusted the particular individuals selected. As a result, some presidents had trouble controlling their cabinet, and others met with their cabinet only infrequently. Andrew Jackson, for example, virtually ignored his official cabinet in favor of his kitchen cabinet, a close circle of personal friends whom he trusted for information and advice. In the twentieth century, cabinets have most often served as a forum for the president to discuss issues and collect opinions; rarely, if ever, have they served as a decision-making body. Instead, the White House staff members frequently function as primary advisers to the president.

The largest organizational units within the executive branch are the fourteen executive departments: Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. These departments, which vary greatly in size and function, are responsible for administering the great majority of the federal government's activities and programs.

Agencies and Corporations

The executive branch includes a large number of agencies for which the president is responsible. Some of these agencies function independently; others are connected to an executive department but may still function as a largely autonomous unit. These agencies manage specific areas of government operations and have little in common except that they lie outside of the traditional management structure of the executive departments. In general, they come in three types: regulatory agencies, independent executive agencies, and government corporations.

Regulatory agencies and commissions control certain economic activities and consumer affairs. These agencies include the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Regulatory agencies and commissions are created by Congress when members believe that certain economic or commercial activities need to be regulated. They accomplish the task of regulation in various ways, depending on their mandate from Congress. Typical methods of regulation include requiring licensing for specific professions and requiring products to be labeled accurately. Some regulatory agencies operate independently, some are governed by bipartisan commissions, and some report to an executive department.

Independent executive agencies are not part of any executive department; rather, they report directly to the president. These agencies include the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the General Services Administration. Frequently, Congress makes such agencies independent so that they can operate without the burden of bureaucratic regulations or the influence of particular executive departments. For example, NASA was made an independent agency so that it could be created more quickly, function more freely, and avoid the demands and influence of the Defense Department.

Government corporations are a unique type of agency in that they function like businesses, providing necessary public services that would be too expensive or unprofitable for private companies to provide. They include the U.S. Postal Service; Amtrak; and the Tennessee Valley Authority, which was created to develop electric power in the Tennessee Valley region. Corporations have more independence than do agencies of any other type. They can buy and sell real estate, and they can sue and be sued. They are not dependent on annual appropriations from Congress, and they retain their own earnings. Congress does provide long-term funding for government corporations, however, so it retains a certain amount of control over their operations.

http://www.answers.com/topic/executive-government


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 01:49 AM
Response to Original message
6. Nope; that's a parliamentary system, which uses a fusion of powers instead of seperation
Dissolving Parliament isn't a big deal anyway; it's not some Palpatinian "I have dealt with the Senate" sort of thing, but rather the act which starts the electoral process. Constitutionally your typical parliamentary prime minister is much more powerful than a US president, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Also true for the state constitutions?...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I'm not familiar with the American ones, but I assume they operate generally the same
If you had a presidential federal government and parliamentary state government, that would be weird, even by political standards. They're pretty seperate traditions so they usually aren't mixed in the same country, at least in the main governments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Yes true. However state constitutions can get pretty funky...a whole 'nother animal.
Although I'm sure you're correct that the basic form of the national constitution would be
followed in the states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TygrBright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 02:30 AM
Response to Original message
9. The President can ask any of their appointees to resign at any time...
...but replacements have to go through the same confirmation process as the prior appointees. So yes, the President can "change the government" (at least the administrative portion of the Executive Branch,) but the President may NOT fire anyone who is elected, nor can he fire Supreme Court Justices once they are confirmed.

helpfully,
Bright
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC