Like a lot of modern US Presidents, Trump has exercised a lot of power the Constitution does not give the President: he's unilaterally withheld spending appropriated by Congress; he's (arguably) started wars without Congressional approval; he's withdrawn the US from treaties ratified by the Senate.
Whether or not you agree with Trump's specific uses of these powers, do you feel the modern Presidency is too powerful? If a Democratic President were to take office in 2028, would you support limiting the power of the Executive and returning more power to Congress?
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
For all participants:
Flair is required to participate
Be excellent to each other
For Nonsupporters/Undecided:
No top level comments
All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
For Trump Supporters:
Helpful links for more info:
Rules | Rule Exceptions | Posting Guidelines | Commenting Guidelines
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
The problem is none of the things you described are absolutely unconstitutional, there is nuance to all of them.
The constitution is silent on impoundment and presidents started withholding money appropriated by Congress as far back as Thomas Jefferson and it was commonplace until 1974 when Congress passed a law to stop it
Declaring war vs military action is murkier but again, historically you see presidents as far back as Jefferson taking military action without a formal act of Congress. Powers which were codified by the war powers act.
Signing treaties is spelled out in the constitution as a presidential power with the advice and consent of the Senate. The constitution is silent on withdrawing from a treaty and I'm unclear on the precedent there but it is surely a presidential power thought may require the consent of the Senate.
I think the bigger concern is the number of executive orders. The presidency probably has gotten too powerful but I would say that is more due to the inability of Congress to do anything of substance. I don't think you can fix one without fixing the other and I don't really have any good ideas on how to do either.
"Until 1984 when congress passed a law to stop it"
That means he broke that law, correct? It's absolutely true that this feckless congress is who should hold him responsible but, they are all afraid of him and his administration so they choose to be cowards and do nothing to retain their powers.
I'm not entirely sure that law passes constitutional scrutiny (particularly with the current SCOTUS) but it's true he violated the law as it is written. There are a few lawsuits that I believe are still working their way through the courts, it'll be interesting to see what happens - that's the role of the judiciary, after all.
And you obviously had a problem with it when Biden did the same thing to Ukraine, right? Do you mind linking us to those posts of yours, showing displeasure in Biden doing that?
Do you really think "whataboutism" is a valid defense?
When Biden did it it was just as wrong. I dont have much respect for many politicians at all, Biden and Obama both fucked us over, too. Quit assuming that just because someone is critical of trump means they ignored when others worked against we the people.
If your only defense is "what about biden" then you clearly aren't able to have this conversation.
If you have a different argument I would be happy to continue but, we arent talking about Biden and it's really weird that maga keeps bringing him up to defend trump.
Yes.
Most of the non-supporters here routinely complain about something that Trump said or did, but then they voted for Obama, Biden, or Harris, who also did the same thing. It happens in almost every thread, so we have to separate out the hypocrites, since we know that they cannot be taken seriously.
There are a few hurdles that most arguments from Liberals cannot make it over. Not being hypocritical is one of them. If someone is going to be hypocritical about something, then it is up to them to defend why they acted differently when two different people did the same thing. This specific instance is a particularly bad one, as Trump was impeached for something that Biden was actually guilty of doing.
OK so, we have established that he broke the law and as well that I dont support any politicians that act lawlessly.
So, why do you support someone who is breaking the law NOW when you are calling out past presidents for violating the very same law.
That's the exact hypocrisy that you were "defending" against. Do you see the irony here? You have become what you are working to prevent.
We have not established that Trump broke the law. One can only be accurately described of breaking the law if they are arrested and convicted of that crime. For instance, someone who is arrested but not convicted of murder is not a murderer, and did not break any law.
In Trump's case, he was impeached by the House, and acquitted by the Senate for the Ukraine thing. So, he didn't break the law with Ukraine. And while Biden also did the same thing, no one thought to even indict him for what he did. Nor did I state that Biden broke the law.
So, you can be hypocritical and vote for Biden, and then arrest Trump for this, unlike any previous President was, if you think you can get a conviction. Good luck!
What do you mean we didn't establish that Trump broke the law? Look back st this thread at where you jumped in. It was literally after agreement that the law had been broken. You didn't take issue with that. You took issues with "well Biden did it first!" Seriously, go back and read it all. This is already established based upon your argument of Biden did it first, not " he didn't do it" but, instead, Biden did it first.
"Trump was impeached (found guilty by the congress) of doing something that Biden was actually guilty of doing"
He was found guilty in the House Of Representatives yet, the senate did not vote to remove from office. That doesn't change his guilty verdict. That only means the senate deemed it not worthy enough a crime to remove from office. It is not a verdict of not guilty. Bill Clinton lied to the American people. Congress convicted him or this. The senate deemed it not worthy of being removed from office. Biden has not been found guilty of this, that means by your logic that he committed no crime, right? (And again, I dont argue that he didn't. I knkw he did but, im using your logic so, please be consistent otherwise your being a hypocrite that you defend against).
You still keep bringing up Biden to defend Trump and its really weird. Why? We already agreed that Biden fucked us. Why do you keep bringing him up. Defend your position without mentioning another president from the past or admit that you can't. Biden is not the topic here. Trump and his actions are.
Can you defend Trumps actions here?
Dude. That's not how any of this works. No, we did not establish Trump's guilt. We said that his actions were similar to Biden's. Trump was never found guilty of it. I was also comparing how Trump was treated, versus how Biden was treated for the same actions.
And that is not how impeachment works, either. The President is immune from certain laws which would otherwise cripple his ability to do his job. For instance, the President cannot be arrested for accessory to murder if he sends soldiers overseas and people die.
The process of impeaching a President removes those protections. That happens in the House. That is all impeachment is.
Then, the actual trial happens in the Senate. Trump was acquitted in the Senate.
Done with you. I'm not going to block you, but if you reply with anything else stupid, I will.
So, you belive that Clinton did not lie to the American people? Cause he was convited of lying in congress but, he was exonerated in the senate. By your definition he was not convicted of anything and that means he is innocent, right?
That's fair. Many of these are subject to varying degrees of debate.
Do you think Trump has done enough to shrink the power of the Presidency? If, say, Gavin Newsom succeeds Trump, will you be happy for him to have as much power as Trump has?
was biden too powerful, then too?
Maybe his auto-pen was?
yeah probably. There's a lot of discretion- and it probably needs to be there, but I'd prefer we have a weaker fed gov and that Congress not toss their powers to the presidency.
Further- judges have far too much power, in practice, and that needs to be resolved- starting with lifetime appointments.
The (original) thought was that because judges were lifetime appointments, they couldn’t be swayed by any political party or ideology because they don’t have to fear retaliation. Do you think in practice this just hasn’t worked out? What do you think should be the term length?
I think I understand the original intent, I also understand that they were considered the weakest branch, but we've found out how to use them against our opposition- write a bill that is vague or in some other way useful, tell the ngo's about it and instruct them on how to use it, find a good case, get the judge to use the law in the direction you want, now you've got case law when you couldn't get a more explicit law. You can also write laws that say the people can sue due to the gov not enforcing other laws.
Then you get a friendly judge one way or another, and sakes alive, things aren't going the way most would feel they should.
What's the fix? I'm not sure and am open to persuasion. Judges should probably have term limits, and possibly be out of cycle appointments from elected officials. Large judgements, judgements against the Fed gov, and wide areas should prob not be the domain of a single judge, I'm sure there are plenty of other sensible safeguards. It's not my area.
Isn’t that always the danger with common law? Many things don’t even get put to the test because we feel they’re too close to established law yet may far exceed the original intent.
Aside from politics and party, I assume it’s also about ideology for judges themselves, it seems to often come down to how they’d like a case to be decided rather than being close to the letter of the law. I get into a lot of hot water around my echo chamber when I mention that John Roberts seems to do a very reasonable job being a judge and not a politician. Are you content with the current make up and appointment process for federal (and state) supreme courts? Do you think it should be up to the executive branch to nominate judges?
No it is not since we have the 2 other branches of government.
Only when a Republican is in power.
Otherwise we’re told it’s normal and good: mandated medical experimentation. Stifling free speech. Lawfare and jailing political opponents. Weaponizing the state against citizens. And on and on.
Yes, as is the whole federal government.
I would prefer a situation where you wouldn’t even know there was a federal government unless you visited a post office, military recruiter, or a federal court house.
That is how a republic is supposed to work.
I get that you are expressing a "minarchist" perspective, that the best government is the least government, but how do you feel about the Presidency's power relative to the other two branches of government?
The executive branch is much bigger than just the presidency.
I am very republican, I’ve got a good friend who is very democrat. And we gained agreement on wishing the federal government was significantly less powerful so that the opposite party winning had much less consequence for the party that got beat. I would like to see a federal government that sticks to the essential tasks, such as defend our shores and negotiate trade with other countries etc. that was what was sold to us when we ratified the constitution.
Is the President the head of the executive branch?
So how do you feel about the relative powers of the 3 branches of government?
How do you feel about the idea that it's each branch's job to keep the other two in check?
The president is supposedly the head of the executive branch, although I believe the intelligence apparatus considers itself the head.
The power of both the legislative and executive branches have grown considerably beyond anything the framers ever intended. The only branch that appears to be a proper size and scale is the judicial branch.
According to what definition specifically of a republic? Webster defines it as a form of government in which the power belongs to a body of citizens entitled to vote & is exercised by the leaders & representatives elected by those citizens to govern according to law. Where do you get the unnoticeable federal government part?
Do you think Trump has done enough to shrink the size of the federal government? Do you want or expect him to do more?
No, I would prefer it be shrunk down to Ron Paul levels.
One of the strengths of the US government structure is the tug of war between states and federal government to balance things out. Are you happy with your elected officials in the house? Do you feel they act more like federal government advocates instead of your elected representatives for your state?
No, I think all the major DC players want to seek more control while all the state players want to get more federal funds and the 10th Amendment gets ignored between the two. I just want us to follow the 10th Amendment and have everything not laid out for Congress to be the domain of the states and the people.
Do you think the decision in Wickard v Filburn in 1942 took federal powers (and the interstate commerce clause) too far? Or, I guess, the effects of that decision. We seem to not really think about that anymore since almost everything seems to be somehow interstate commerce?
For me the question isn't whether the presidency is too powerful but is the federal government (three branches) too powerful. The balance of power between the federal and state level has been leaning too far to federal power.
Then is the Executive branch too powerful? In modern times, yes. Legislating disguised as rulemaking enabled by a feckless Congress more interested in bitching than legislating.
Are you saying that a weak congress has squandered it's power? Has a greedy Presidency (regardless of which power) taken the power that was not rightly theirs?
You've listened nothing that's explicitly unconstitutional. Yes the President is too powerful. You can blame Congress for handing over too much of their power via legislation, as well as creating big government programs the President ultimately runs.
Whenever Congress creates a program, it will be run by the President, and the President may run it in a manner you disagree with.
A couple thoughts about this, and this is a three-dimensional thing.
The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution states that when there is something that needs to be decided or assigned to or by a level of government, if that issue isn't strictly prohibited to the states, nor strictly assigned to the federal government, then it is the responsibility of the states to handle.
From the opposite perspective, you could also say that it means that when state laws conflict with federal law, the federal law takes precedence, provided it is constitutional. Both are technically true. It's just that the wording puts different emphasis on it.
So, our states don't have nearly as much power as they should. People protesting in St. Louis about Trump's actions are wasting their energy (and lives). They probably don't even know their Mayor's name, nor the names of their Representatives or Senators. But, that is who they should be addressing.
And, the federal government needs to get out of the mindset that it doesn't just automatically get to decide everything. It is the "Supreme Law of the Land", but what authority it actually has jurisdiction over is tightly controlled by the Constitution. Ergo, Roe v. Wade.
We are a collection of sovereign municipalities. Or, the United States of America. If America was a pathway made of bricks, the states would be the bricks, and the federal government would be the mortar in between them. So, the federal government having too much power, and the states having too little, is actually both of their faults for letting it happen that way.
But, this mentality came from the Civil War. Lincoln said, as a way to justify the war, that states were not allowed to leave the Union. Well, I strongly disagree with that. And people who wrote memoirs at the time said that Lincoln also did not believe it. He just said it to keep the four slave states who were fighting on behalf of the north from leaving and joining the other side.
But, that argument has carried forward ever since then. Now we have departments of our government that get a trillion dollars a year, and are not held accountable for it.
Also, we have three equal branches of government which have equal amounts of power. That means that the 535 members of Congress have the same amount of power as the 9 Supreme Court Justices, who have the same amount of power as the President - the head of the Executive branch. So, just keep that in mind. By design, the President has 9 times the power of each Supreme Court Justice, and 535 times the power as any person in Congress.
Fun fact: When the Framers were writing the Constitution, they did not know what title to use for the President. They obviously wanted to shy away from titles such as "King", "Lord", "Duke", or even "Governor". They purposely settled on the word "President" because it was not widely used to denote any sort of high power or authority. Back then, being a "President" meant that you were in charge of your local Rotary Club.
So, to answer your question, all of the federal government - including the Presidency - has too much power right now.
Would you like to see Trump do more to shrink the federal government and the Presidency in particular? Do you think he's doing enough?
No, the government is working as intended. The issue is that people keep voting for Senators and Representatives that don't do anything meaningful.
Could, or should, Trump do more to restore the power of Congress relative to the Presidency?
There's no imbalance in power to restore. If the Legislative branch wants to pass a bill or veto Trump, they can.