The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 7, Thread 54.

1. What is a President for?
Tue, Jan 26, 1999 - 1:28 PM/EST
Kevin

Beside late-night jokes, I mean.

The reaction to the State of the Union was, in some cases, very critical of what was perceived to be President Clinton taking credit for things he didn't do. The House manages the money, the Senate approves treaties, and both make all the laws. The Supreme Court overturns bad laws and adds legal definition to our society.

So, in your own opinion, what is the President good for? Whenever possible, try to put the answer in the context of general views of the Office and not the specific failings or talents of this particular President.

3. I'll try that again
Tue, Jan 26, 1999 - 3:57 PM/EST
markearnest

I've always seen the President as the visable leader of the Country. Someone who represents us collectivly to the world. Our 'ultimate' ambassador, if you will. Also someone who we expect to brief us on what is going on in government.
Logistially, his job is to sign or veto laws that Congress makes.

4. Presidential duties and power
Wed, Jan 27, 1999 - 1:51 AM/EST
Claudia

AS the head of state, commander in chief of the armed forces, and chief executive officer, he is responsible for carrying out the law.

1. Executive powers; He has broad power to manage national affairs and the workings of the federal government. He can issue executive orders which are binding on federal agencies. He may call state units of the national guard into federal service. He is personally, along with the secretary of state, responsible for relations between the U.S. and foreign nations. He can agree to bilateral and multilateral agreements with other chiefs of state. I think his most powerful authority is his ability to conduct war and peace which include negotiation of treaties. He appoints the executive departments (Cabinet) of our government, with approval of the Senate.

Legislative powers:He can veto bills passed by Congress, who may override the veto with a 2/3 vote in both houses. He may propose legislation. If it isn't acted upon by Congress he can call a special session to force action.

Judicial powers; He appoints federal judges and members of the Supreme Court, with confirmation by the Senate. He can grant a full or conditional pardon to anyone convicted of breaking a federal law, except for impeachment. (Nixon resigns ergo Ford pardons him) He can also shorten prison terms and reduce fines.

I'm sure I'm missing some, but I don't recall any powers or duties regarding sexual activity. Regarding the criticism about what he can take credit for, I do have opinions, but they're not relevant to your question, Kevin. It's a good question as I think some members of congress would like us to believe theirs is a more important function.

5. Ditto Claudia
Wed, Jan 27, 1999 - 5:26 AM/EST
AGZ

I think you stated it well. Presidents of both parties have always taken the credit for good times and the blame for bad ones. It is just a matter of being in office at the right time.
Since congress controls the purse aren't they more responsible for the good and/or bad times?
Remember Bush was defeated mainly because of the slow economy. Most experts though did acknowledge that it was getting better and expected good times but that change was too late to save him.
Has anyone ever met Bush? He, his family, and those friends around him are really nice people.
I see James Baker often walking downtown, I believe those people such as Baker deserve some type of protection also when they leave gov.

6. Does it matter?
Wed, Jan 27, 1999 - 9:29 AM/EST
Jazzy34

Does it really matter WHO is president?

My husband played at Carter's Inaugral Ball. He has played for Reagan, Bush (and wannabe Dole). They were all nice guys.

But they, Clinton, most Congressmen and women are driven by the need to survive in the political arena.

This current situatin makes it appear as though there is a difference in which party is in power. In normal circumstances, INMHO, I don't think it does matter.

I admit to great cynicism concerning politics and politicians, including Presidents.

7. 1 for domestic policy and 1 for foreign policy
Thu, Jan 28, 1999 - /EST
dorothy

Rather than trying to find one man who can at once be great in the domestic and foreign arenas, we could have two leaders, one for domestic and one skilled in foreign policy. This is unrealistic as is calling a constitutional convention to redo the constitution in the light of what we have today ,as opposed to 1787.

I have said this before, but for me FDR embodied the essence of the ideal President. After all he was elected 4 times. When he died people lined the railroad tracks for hundreds of miles to see the train traveling from Warm Springs Georgia to Wash. D.C. People cried, as if someone close to them were wrenched from their very family. This feeling was almost repeated with Kennedy except the shock was more because of the sudden brutality
That's it for today
Dorothy
Regards to everyone, more tomorrow hopefully.

8. president's job description
Thu, Jan 28, 1999 - 8:53 AM/EST
operabuff

The president's job, according to his opponents, is to set a moral example for the youth of America (if the president gets away with lying, they proclaim, then American children will get the message that it's okay to lie,) which begs the question: why is it that, during this administration, the parameters by which we measure public morals are actually improving? The abortion rate is down, as are the rates of teen pregnancies, crime, drug abuse, new AIDS cases, to name just a few. I would suggest that this is not because the youth of America look to see what the president is doing and then follow his example, despite what Henry Hyde says. Rather than acting as a moral example in his own behavior, the president acts as a moral leader by the public policy initiatives he promotes, such as improved education, better access to birth control, job programs, and the like. In fact, the "big government programs" the republicans denigrate are what contribute to the quality of life for America's youth.

In the impeachment procedings, the president has also been called the chief law enforcement officer of the US, even though that job description is not in the Constitution. The House Managers have called him to task for violating his "constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully esecuted." (That particular duty does not, indeed, make him the law-enforcement-officer in chief - he is not the chief cop.) They then complain about the legalistic hairsplitting employed by the president's defenders, who address the technical definitions of perjury and obstruction of justice. But, if the main premise for the impeachment, as stated in the first article, is that the president violated that duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, then, doesn't it follow that in order for the president to be convicted, his actions must be judged to have violated the law. Therefore, cries of "he lied, isn't that enough" are meaningless, and the petty details of the law regarding just exactly what constitutes perjury and obstruction, are of crucial importance.

9. Thank you dorothy and operabuff
Thu, Jan 28, 1999 - 6:10 PM/EST
Claudia

It gives me so much pleasure and hope to read your intelligent, thoughtful postings. As I stated in Thread 1 today, I'm so sick of being considered stupid by our representatives. You have both reinforced my belief that we may even, perhaps, be more intelligent than many of them.

Dorothy, you captured the essence of a truly great president. I worked so hard to help Kennedy get elected even though I was too young to vote at the time. One of my greatest memories was marching through the rain in Chicago to what was his final rally before the election. The marchers ranged from ladies in elegant furs to men in rags plus many young people like myself. He inspired so many with his belief in what we, the people, could do. I was so proud that this man represented our country, as he did at the Berlin Wall. After hearing of his assasination I felt the need to just go to church alone to pray. As I arrived the church soon filled to standing room only. Then the priest came out and said Mass. It wasn't planned. It was quiet and solemn and then we all just silently went home. I can't say he was a great president because he just didn't have the time. I hope my children someday will experience that pride in their country's leader.

Operabuff, you are so right about the morality of the president's policies being his true measure insofar as morality should be considered. The current abuses of the law which we are now seeing by the Republican party have set what I fear is a new precedent. Not for future impeachments, but for the loss of privacy to all of our citizens. My only hope is that we can correct this in future elections.