The President of the United States has more influence

"Wait" if you want to see that change in real life. This may be a bad reading of history, but i have gotten the impression that the presidency has grown more powerful throughout US history. The most memorable presidents are the ones who enlarged the office. Lincoln took the presidency to its extremes (and could be a POD for the office turning despotic). I donno who said it, but FDR "Stretched the glove" and left the office larger than it was when he he got it. Even in the present day, we've seen a shift in Presidents governing by executive order. Now, whether this is a necessary evil because of the gridlock in congress, or an example of a hubris, depends on where you fall on the political spectrum.
 
They have a lot of influence now.
I don't think so. Here in Canada the Prime Minister, or any Westminister-type parliament, especially with a majority government, has far more influence or more accurately, power than the US President. The only barrier or oversight in Canada is the Supreme Court's enforcement of the Charter of Rights of Freedoms and very seldomly the Senate.

In the USA the President weeps about guns and mass shootings, but can't do anything about because Congress and the Supreme Court would stop him. Many Americans are glad this is the case. Here in Canada, the Prime Minister could outlaw all legally owned guns tomorrow and send the RCMP to collect them all, and he'd be legally in the right. The ability to disarm the citizenry has to be the height of influence and power.
 
I don't think so. Here in Canada the Prime Minister, or any Westminister-type parliament, especially with a majority government, has far more influence or more accurately, power than the US President. The only barrier or oversight in Canada is the Supreme Court's enforcement of the Charter of Rights of Freedoms and very seldomly the Senate.

In the USA the President weeps about guns and mass shootings, but can't do anything about because Congress and the Supreme Court would stop him. Many Americans are glad this is the case. Here in Canada, the Prime Minister could outlaw all legally owned guns tomorrow and send the RCMP to collect them all, and he'd be legally in the right. The ability to disarm the citizenry has to be the height of influence and power.

I would say the right to selectively arm the citizenry is a greater height than just disarming all of them. We like to talk about the power wielded by Lincoln and FDR because they were during a wartime and wartime presidents get special leeway because the party not in power is going to be afraid to say "no" during war (ahem... Patriot Act). But let's not forget that John Adams, second president and considered one of the weaker presidents had the Alien and Sedition Acts, laws that make the Patriot Act look like the 1st Amendment. President Jackson thumbed his nose (and possibly gave the middle finger) to the Supreme Court when they told him "Hey, you know those Indians you're moving, no you can't do that, it's not Constitutional" and Jackson replied "Let me know when the Supreme Court has its own army". That's hubris. Both Adams and Jackson were before Lincoln supposedly made the Presidency as close to dictatorship as possible (which is BS, bogus, and sooooo not true). Lincoln and FDR both got many acts shot down by the Supreme Court and had to live with it. Yes, FDR threatened the Supreme Court that he'd simply enlarge the number of judges and thereby appoint his new judges to have a majority, but would this have been unconstitutional for him to do? No. The Constitution simply demands there's at least 1 member of SCOTUS, and that's the Chief Justice position, beyond that Congress decides how many members whenever it wants. When we have a President like Jackson who literally ignores a decision by SCOTUS and still can't get successfully impeached by Congress, then I'll believe in a presidency getting stronger as time goes on and that Lincoln made the presidency strong enough for a "possible" dictatorship at one point. Until then the truth is- Congress has always been complicit in the enlarging of Federal power, which people mistake for enlarging of presidential power, but in reality since it is Congress refusing to stop it or intentionally enlarging it, it is Congress getting stronger if only for the fact that what the strengthen, they can weaken.
 
I don't think so. Here in Canada the Prime Minister, or any Westminister-type parliament, especially with a majority government, has far more influence or more accurately, power than the US President. The only barrier or oversight in Canada is the Supreme Court's enforcement of the Charter of Rights of Freedoms and very seldomly the Senate.

In the USA the President weeps about guns and mass shootings, but can't do anything about because Congress and the Supreme Court would stop him. Many Americans are glad this is the case. Here in Canada, the Prime Minister could outlaw all legally owned guns tomorrow and send the RCMP to collect them all, and he'd be legally in the right. The ability to disarm the citizenry has to be the height of influence and power.


There is some truth to that, but the prime minister can also be removed by a simple vote of the house of commons. The pm has no true independent power free from legislative intent, his powers are a fusion of executive and legislative powers. While the us president can tell the congress to screw off and still have a lot of independent power. And if the pm tried that he would be unseated immediately. The pm by it's very existence is partially collegial, he shares power with the people who could unseat him, the president's power is independent. Can the pm invade another country against the will of his party and the commons, probably not. Can the us president? Yes, it is just not advisable. So in stark unadulterated power the us president has more power then any westminster pm. But in pure de facto domestic power, usually a pm has more of that then a president.

I would say the right to selectively arm the citizenry is a greater height than just disarming all of them. We like to talk about the power wielded by Lincoln and FDR because they were during a wartime and wartime presidents get special leeway because the party not in power is going to be afraid to say "no" during war (ahem... Patriot Act). But let's not forget that John Adams, second president and considered one of the weaker presidents had the Alien and Sedition Acts, laws that make the Patriot Act look like the 1st Amendment. President Jackson thumbed his nose (and possibly gave the middle finger) to the Supreme Court when they told him "Hey, you know those Indians you're moving, no you can't do that, it's not Constitutional" and Jackson replied "Let me know when the Supreme Court has its own army". That's hubris. Both Adams and Jackson were before Lincoln supposedly made the Presidency as close to dictatorship as possible (which is BS, bogus, and sooooo not true). Lincoln and FDR both got many acts shot down by the Supreme Court and had to live with it. Yes, FDR threatened the Supreme Court that he'd simply enlarge the number of judges and thereby appoint his new judges to have a majority, but would this have been unconstitutional for him to do? No. The Constitution simply demands there's at least 1 member of SCOTUS, and that's the Chief Justice position, beyond that Congress decides how many members whenever it wants. When we have a President like Jackson who literally ignores a decision by SCOTUS and still can't get successfully impeached by Congress, then I'll believe in a presidency getting stronger as time goes on and that Lincoln made the presidency strong enough for a "possible" dictatorship at one point. Until then the truth is- Congress has always been complicit in the enlarging of Federal power, which people mistake for enlarging of presidential power, but in reality since it is Congress refusing to stop it or intentionally enlarging it, it is Congress getting stronger if only for the fact that what the strengthen, they can weaken.

Lincoln ordered mass illegal arrest, ignoring the constitution and the supreme court. He is quoted to saying as commander in chief he can do basically anything he deems necessary in the pursuit of the enemy. Lincoln was right in doing so, but he did make the presidency a dictatorship, we are probably lucky he was assassinated, so he did not have to ask himself if he wanted to be a Cincinnatus. The ends did justify the means, especially to stop slavery an abomination, which I know wasn't his main goal, but that is what happened.
 
Lincoln ordered mass illegal arrest, ignoring the constitution and the supreme court. He is quoted to saying as commander in chief he can do basically anything he deems necessary in the pursuit of the enemy. Lincoln was right in doing so, but he did make the presidency a dictatorship, we are probably lucky he was assassinated, so he did not have to ask himself if he wanted to be a Cincinnatus. The ends did justify the means, especially to stop slavery an abomination, which I know wasn't his main goal, but that is what happened.


The US Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus during times of insurrection. The chief justice of the supreme court at the time was a hard core pro-slavery copperhead with dubious loyalty to the United States. If Lincoln was really making himself dictator he would have locked up newspaper reporters critical of the government, suspended the elections, ruled by fiat instead of passing laws by congress etc.
 
Top