Can the United States not be governed without a president?

[Anonymous]

[abc3643]

Not under the US Constitution. For the United States to be governed without a President, there would have to be a constitutional amendment passed that declares a date of the Constitution being void.

Something like this happened not quite 240 years ago. Originally, the United States's national government was created under something called the Articles of Confederation. However, like the South during the US Civil War and EU demonstrates today, confederations are weak and doomed to fail. So, in 1787, the Founding Fathers got together in a convention and attempted to come up with ideas for updating the Articles of Confederation so that the nation would be stronger. But then they gave up and took a different approach: a federation with a stronger national government. The result of that "Constitutional Convention" was the US Constitution which was to be the charter document for the new national government.

One the Constitution was ratified by 9 of the 13 states, it would then be made to go into force and the Articles of Confederation would explicitly become null and void. The date chosen was 04 MARCH 1789. In a sense, that's the birthday of "The United States", the formal legal name of the Federal Government. In matters of law, lawyers need to refer to the Federal Government as "The United States".

So, remember that:

• Independence Day, 04 JUL 1776, is the day the country known as the United States declared its independence from England.
• But, 04 MAR 1789, is the day that the Federal Government came into operation.

Now, the US Constitution outlines the creation and operation of the Federal Government.

The first 3 "articles" in the Constitution spell out the 3 branches of the Federal Government:

• Article I describes Congress as being the head of the Legislative Branch of government.
• Article II describes the President as being the head of the Executive Branch of government.
• Article III described the Supreme Court as being the head of the Judicial Branch of government.

So, because the office of President is explicitly stated to exist and be a critical member of the Federal Government, the United States (both in the national sense and legal entity sense) cannot be governed without a President as long as the US Constitution is in force. Only once the US Constitution is null and void would the Federal Government cease to exist and then the country known as the United States would have a different from of national government.

[Lliam]

Under the Constitution, we have three branches of government - the executive, the legislative, and the judicial.

The powers of the U. S. President are outlined in Article II of the U. S. Constitution.
- Chief Executive: Responsible for ensuring all federal laws are faithfully executed.
- Appointments: Nominates Cabinet members, Supreme Court Justices, ambassadors, and other federal officials, which are subject to Senate confirmation.
- Executive Orders: Issues directives that manage federal government operations and agencies.
- Clemency: Grants reprieves and pardons for federal offenses, except in cases of impeachment.
- Veto Power: Can sign bills into law or veto them. Congress can override a veto with a two-thirds majority vote.
- Agenda Setting: Required to periodically deliver the State of the Union address to Congress to recommend policy measures.
- Commander in Chief: Directs the U. S. armed forces during both peace and wartime, though only Congress can formally declare war.

Who would fulfill these rolls if we didn't have a chief executive?

In America, the president must run for general election by the citizens every four years and cannot serve more than two terms. Because of that fact, combined with the powers of the legislative and judicial branches of government, the president doesn't exactly rule over the country as would a dictator or monarch.

The president can be voted out after their first term or even removed from office under certain circumstances. So, again, he does not have unlimited power to rule.

[Anonymous]

The President selects SCOTUS Justice appointments, there are govt hearings if the pick is qualified, and then they end up on the bench.

The President cannot declare war, but he/she can move the troops.

The Presidential elections take place every four years and can only serve maximum of two terms.

If the US was created to not have a President, it would be puzzling as to why we have these rules in the first place.
Or how do we have Presidents if America can be governed without one? It can’t.

Honestly, it would probably have to be an Amendment to the US Constitution which hasn’t happened in so long and America is very divided so it would be near impossible to have anyone on board with this. You’d have to make The Executive Branch somehow run on its own, maybe have elections for each cabinet position or something, you can’t just not have a President or at least in theory.

TLDR: You would need a new system and to do that, you’d need to amend The Constitution.

[RavVid]

The Westminster system has the executive within parliament - hence Prime Misters. In your case it could be within Congress.

Your Founding Fathers were very much aware of that but at that time Cromwell was still within living memory. So they wanted to avoid a strong man taking over as Cromwell did.

You need a mechanism of transferring power from one executive to the next since Prime Ministers rise and fall. You just can't have fixed terms with elections on one set date and the transfer of power on another set date.

The easiest way to do this is to have a King to issue writs for elections and issue warrants to the Prime Minister and other Ministers.

Charles III might be willing to help you out and be your King.

[strateguy632]

but British is bad because the same "manager" is the same one making laws for his agenda, instead of general laws. we are the only real republic not briton nor israel etc.

[RavVid]

@strateguy632 @strateguy632 Yes indeed. UK, Australia, Canada etc are monarchies and see ourselves as such. We certainly aren't republics and Australia rejected changing to a republic in a referendum around 2000. Our founding fathers considered and rejected a President as well.

Don't get me wrong. I wasn't suggesting you change. I was trying to point out, in response to the question, that not having a President running the executive would require moving the executive into Congress because their must be an executive in government.

There would a lot of consequential changes as well as it would make your system a Westminster system. Can't see you doing it.

For myself I see the Westminster system as superior for a number of reasons but you do need a King to handle the transfer of power from one gov't to another. That is the constitutional role of a the Monarch.

And yes, because the executive is within the legislature the "manager" i. e the Prime Minister, is directing legislation, budget and execution so it is a powerful position. Almost unbridled. But for popular opinion that can see a PM fall. As happened to Starmer recently. Being able to tear down a PM is a very good feature of our way and a great blood sport..

Always up for a constitutional your system versus our system discussion and happy to further discuss if you are so inclined.

Cheers

[strateguy632]

you included the king? i had believed the king was a figurehead that did nothing. like the dice hanging in a car?

[RavVid]

@strateguy632 @strateguy632 Yes there is a King of Australia and a King of Canada etc etc. They all happen to be Charles III at the mo.

Most of the time the Monarch is just King or Queen of bling and about as meaningful as dice hanging off the rear vision mirror in a car. as you aptly described.

BUT the Monarch (via his representative) has the constitutional role of issuing writs for elections and following an election, inviting the leader of the party with the most seats to form a government and issues a Commision to form a government and swears he/she in as Prime Minister. The Prime Minister advises the monarch or vice regal to appoint various members of parliament to be Ministers for various responsibilities and issues Commissions to them and swears them in. The gov't is then formed.

The Monarch is expected to be a fair umpire and has high levels of trust in being so.

In a number of Presidential systems, the President chooses the Prime Minister e. g France. Macron, as a Centrist Alliance politician, chose from his side for the Prime Minister despite it having fewer representatives than Left Alliance.

You can have little trust in a politician and a lot more trust in 'a fair umpire' Monarch.

It was exactly that reason our Founding Fathers debated a President in the constitutional convention and concluded you couldn't trust a politician as President. This was affirmed by the People in 1999.

[slatyb]

The Constitution says there is a President, and if the sitting President dies, the Vice-President becomes President. Other countries have a parliamentary system, where the prime minister can be removed by a vote of no confidence by the parliament. That may be better. The problem in the US is that the President's powers aren't clearly enumerated, and worse, today we have a Congress that won't do it's job.

[msc545]

You forgot to add that we also have a Supreme Court that was apparently purchased by the present President. You can see how well that "balance of powers" system works in the context of a capitalist economy where everything and everyone is for sale.

[slatyb]

@msc545 Capitalism per se is not the problem. Allowing a large portion of the country to suffer from the economic changes due to globalization and automation made them and consequently the entire country easy prey for a demagogue.

[msc545]

Capitalism is, in fact, the problem because capitalism, in the absence of good regulations, allows large portions of capital to be accumulated by individuals and corporations, which allows them in turn to purchase regulatory officials, essentially, Including but not limited to Supreme Court judges

[ohsheeT]

Hasn't that been happening for the last past 30 years

With our president Congress senators any other Federal elected official when's the last time you heard your elected officials talk or do something positive for you or represent you in a way that you want to be represented you'll hear from them when it comes time to be reelected you'll hear from them when the people who run our country want change but when you want change you will not hear from themno

[Chazmatazz269]

It could be. It should be. It kind of is a government of committee, but there’s definitely room for improvement in that regard.
A good start would be ending VP campaigns. The candidate with the most votes gets the presidency. The runner up gets the vice presidency.
We the people have to force the two major parties to work together if we’re never going to elect an alternative party.

[OlderAndWiser]

Have you ever studied the history of presidential elections?

[strateguy632]

so imagine roosevelt-d wins election 1944, so republican VP rules senate with republican policy?
fdr died so the republican takes over? that would have prevented a stain on america history but is this what you @chazmatazz269
wanted?

[OlderAndWiser]

@strateguy632 And how did that work for John Adams having Thomas Jefferson as his VP?

[strateguy632]

@OlderAndWiser sounds like you agree about roosevelt. so when obama won trump republican would be vice president?

[OlderAndWiser]

@strateguy632 Not a brilliant idea, is it?

[SeekerOfTruth007]

I would personally like the existing office of President to be abolished. It serves no real purpose anymore, and only adds to corrupttion. Plus so much money is wasted every 4 years on campaign slogans and lies each candidate tells about how they are going to solve everyone's problems, etc. We'd be better off with a British Parliamentary system, or no president at all.

[strateguy632]

correct. the United States must be governed by a president. the manager and elected army boss. the idea of separation of powers is unique and American exceptionalism.

[strateguy632]

in simpler words not+ without
=with "United States is only governed with a president" or "only with a president can u. s. be governed"

[Anonymous]

well, how do you define "governed"? what do you mean by the term? I mean, we need a foreign policy, right? And someone must make those important decisions. But is that part of being "governed" for you?

Let me know ask you this: Can Britain not be governed without a prime minister? Can the Roman Empire not be governed without an emperor? Could the Soviet Union not be governed without a General Secretary? I think the answer is the same for all of them.

[exitseven]

We have 3 seats of power. Each has a function. The President is the Chief Executive 'officer. Those functions must be given to some other entity,

[Asker]

Can the office of president be abolished?

[strateguy632]

no because of constitution document that set the shape of the government.

[msc545]

Yes, and it probably should be. Presidents are nothing but trouble.

[blackeagle007]

Who’s gonna be in charge of the Executive Branch then?

[Anonymous]

There isn't one now, but I don't think you can call it being governed.

[Micheal6918]

It can't because every country needs a president

[Telekinetic-Potato]

I don't think that would work.

[katiesmuff]

What a cluster fuck that would be!

[msc545]

It would not be as bad of a clusterfuck as it is presently.

[katiesmuff]

@msc545 I can't disagree with that!

[noohair]

Biden was a place holder...

[Anonymous]

No, we need Trump

[kinks1951]

We are now