Should the president be given unlimited powers relative to congress in dealing with National security?

Question

What is your opinion, Please explain why or why not.

Answer 1

Definitely not.  Such a thing would be in opposition not only to the Constitution, the separation of powers/checks and balances set therein, and all the rules and laws based on it, but also oathes taken to that effect.

My opinion - unconstitutional, at best.  Such things swing wide open the doors to tyranny and oppression.  I would consider it a violation of the public trust and the law/rule the president is sworn to uphold and as such would submit it to be an act of an enemy of the state.  No one branch is allowed, nor should be allowed, to have unlimited powers over the other(s) or our system fails - fails to prevent what 'the Fathers' sought to protect us from and fails we the people.

Answer 2

a president with unlimited powers is a dictator

Answer 3

Absolutely not.  The presidency has already accumulated too much power, and it has gotten far worse under the current administration.

Our system of government was set up so that no part of it should be above the law or unanswerable to the other branches.  Concentrating power in the presidency destroys the checks and balances that keep our republic together, and paves the way to totalitarianism and dictatorship.

Answer 4

No, The power of our country comes from the states("People").  Not from one person("The President"). This is one of the reasons why we as a country fought  England.  The real way to answer this question is  what is Security.  Is security searching through  peoples houses and interrupting peoples innocent lives in the name of security going to make you feel safe.  What are we being secured from. Muslims Extremists, Corrupt governments, and atheists. Then we are our countries worst nightmare.  We ("The People") should not rely on the government but the Government rely on the people.

I hope that this gets your question going in the right direction.

But to answer it... No because no one person should have power over the government.  A president is a form of Check and Balance. Commander and Chief over a stabled army of the people.

Remember that the number one duty of a soldier is to protect the people. Not the government. THE PEOPLE. God Bless John Adams!!!



Jimbo Out!!!

Answer 5

Nobody has unlimited power in a democratic republic.

That would be dictatorship...

Answer 6

None of the branches of Government have absolute anything.  It's called checks and balances and if you would read about it, you would have a lot beter understanding.......

Answer 7

I thank the guy who called it a democratic republic which is the proper term.   We are not a democracy.