Question: Why do we need an Executive Branch?

[BigV]

Why are we doing your homework?

[lookout123]

it is the american way.

[BigV]

First world cop, now world detention monitor?

Is that a promotion?

[lookout123]

hey don't look at me - i don't want a freakin' nanny state.

[tw]

Originally Posted by PointsOfLight

Why do we need an Executive Branch?

Would we be better off with a "Republican Parliamentary" system of government?

Prime Minister instead of President?

Taking it as two separate questions. Second question. Prime Minister is nothing more than an executive just like a president. The British play games with the Prime Minister answering to the Queen. But reality is otherwise. The Prime Minister is the sole leader - the executive.

First question goes back even to how operations were conducted 2000 years before the New World was discovered - before Christ. Any operation conducted without a sole leader in the field was doomed to failure. It was well known that long ago. Same is a problem in Airbus that has multiple leaders and therefore could not avert major manufacturing failures and therefore requires government subsidies. Same mistake was made by the British in 1770s America. Same mistake was made by mental midgets who never learned basic management concepts and imposed their stupidity in Iraq. The fractured American leadership was directly traceable to a supreme commander sitting in the Pentagon where he had no idea of reality and he was divorced from the only thing necessary for success.

Some mistake an executive as a dictator. When the executive is a dictator, then the best one can hope for is stunning short term gains and a long term disaster. Great leaders do not dictate. Great leaders seek out and promote the innovators within their system. See the movie Apollo 13 to understand why great management meant 3 astronauts, who should have died, were saved.

Danger of a sole executive is found in another well understood concept. When they live too long in the ethersphere (typically 10 years), then they become corrupt and disattached. They forget what their job is. Too many yes-men and power grabbers have converged around them. They forget what once made them so successful. They lose touch with what kept them honest.

For this reason, governments also need a Congress, Parliament, Senate, Knesset, Board of Directors, or Dumas. Once a leader becomes a dictator (instead of an advocate of the people), then a committee with power must save that institution from that dictator. How badly did Carly Fiornia harm Hewlett Packard before the board finally removed her? Need we cite Richard Nixon as one of the greatest threats to this nation's government? Other examples were Johnson's wise men who finally got him to realize the disastrous mistake called Vietnam.

A most recent example of why an executive is required is the American management in 2003 Iraq. American soldiers are still dying because the administration violated management principles well proven even 2500 years ago. Worse is that the Congress was even so dumb as to go along with it. Examples include Tom Daschle, Democratic Senate leader. You would think after all these centuries, when stupid management mistakes are obvious, then people in power would see it? But Iraq is the perfect example of management corruption created or advocated by Bremmer, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, Feith, George Jr, and especially Cheney.

Management always needs a central leader. But, do not confuse that leader with something corrupt - a dictator. Great management has central leadership that is not a dictatorship. Does the leader work for his people / institution? Or do the people / institution work for the leader? Reasons why are found in what that management must do to advance mankind: innovate.

[regular.joe]

Wow, I leave for a week, and there is sooo much to read.


Because we need leadership. Leadership and management are very, very different things.

Leaders, any leaders, lead at the consent of those they lead.

We have a "President", because that is the way our government is described in our constitution.

Lumberjim is correct.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

Wow, I leave for a week, and there is sooo much to read.


Because we need leadership. Leadership and management are very, very different things.

Leaders, any leaders, lead at the consent of those they lead.

We have a "President", because that is the way our government is described in our constitution.

Lumberjim is correct.

Wow. You leave for a week and you forget how to read.

Which of lumberjim's two posts are correct, if you please?

Originally Posted by lumberjim

decapitated bodies wander about running into walls.

Originally Posted by lumberjim

it's an allegory ....or maybe a parable. possibly it's death metal lyrics.

[Beest]

Originally Posted by tw

The Prime Minister is the sole leader - the executive.

The British Prime Minister is not a seperate Branch of Govenment like the US President.
As the top dog they choose ministers and set agendas, but do not have the individual power to set policy and law.

[regular.joe]

Pick one.

[Cloud]

An "executive" of some type may be a prerequisite for and a defining characteristic of a modern state. I mean, is there a country today without either an elected, hereditary, or conqueror-type figurehead? Even if it is more than one person, or more than one figurehead.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I think watching people thinking well is fun.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I think watching people thinking well is fun.

Those that can, do. Those that can't, watch.

Glad you're having fun though.

[10MHz]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

All the presidents have used signing statements to get things done around Congress or to declare their intent. Not new.

Most Presidents use signing statements to clarify their interpretation of a specific law, not as a declaration of defiance. Bush has issued more signing statements (over 1,100 to date) than all other previous Presidents and uses them in a manner simillar to a line item veto, a practice ruled to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...dreds_of_laws/

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by 10MHz

Most Presidents use signing statements to clarify their interpretation of a specific law, not as a declaration of defiance. Bush has issued more signing statements (over 1,100 to date) than all other previous Presidents and uses them in a manner simillar to a line item veto, a practice ruled to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...dreds_of_laws/

I don't care. He used them as he saw fit. I didn't agree with all of it but he did it and people followed his wishes. In a few months we will have another president who will do things many disagree with. Not new.

[10MHz]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I don't care. He used them as he saw fit. I didn't agree with all of it but he did it and people followed his wishes. In a few months we will have another president who will do things many disagree with. Not new.

You're not alone in your contempt for the rules of law. In the past, signing statements were used sparingly to express concerns about Constitutional issues or a fundamental disagreement between the Executive and Legislative branches. However, the only branch that can determine the Constitutionality of a law is the Judiciary. The only branch that can alter a law as written is the Legislative. Nowhere is it stated that a President/Executive can simply choose whether or not a law he signed is legal, enforcable, or anything else. He either signs it and it becomes a law that he is sworn to uphold, or he vetoes it. Period.