[locococo]

I think a big problem here is that all existing laws and the system concerning presidents rests on one very important assumption. That the commander in chief is a decent, rational human being that carefully considers his actions and holds the interest of the United States and the Citizens in high regards.

It all falls apart and gets too complicated to regulate when the assumption is that you can't trust the person in office.

[tines]

I don't think this is true. The constitution was designed with the idea of preventing a king from coming to power. The whole separation of powers thing presumes that an individual is bad, but groups are less bad.

[notTooFarGone]

Everything a king does is an official act by definition.

What do you think is something a president does? Is starting a war an official act? Or appointing your own supreme court? Persecuting insurrectionists?

Who will judge this once the ball gets going? The judges now appointed by you?

[chrsig]

> Who will judge this once the ball gets going? The judges now appointed by you?

This is what lifetime appointments were intended to address. There's no incentive to rule in the president's favor. Of course, now there's the prospect of gratuity for services rendered.

[friend_and_foe]

Congress, via impeachment.

Look, the president can't do something like start a war without permission from congress. Congress basically delegated that authority to the president. If the president then uses it irresponsibly (as has happened numerous times since congress made this decision) then that's the fault of congress. They can very easily pass legislation requiring a declaration of war and take that power back if they want to.

[anderber]

But each party will protect their president, and you need a two-thirds to impeach. I just don't see the modern senate ever impeaching a President. We've seen today how far they will go to ignore reality and lie to make sure their leader doesn't suffer any consequences.

[neogodless]

I kind of (OK totally) need a history lesson / refresher. How was the Judicial Branch supposed to function?

Because I don't believe it was supposed to be able to basically override the Legislative Branch. Just like the Executive Branch wasn't supposed to have unchecked power as long as it's "Official" business.

How were the three Branches intended to keep each of the other in check?

[mschuster91]

By everyone doing their job and respecting the authority that the other branches had. Something like an executive outright ignoring court orders (e.g. Joe Arpaio [1]) is as unexpected as the legislative refusing to pass laws because it's gridlocked due to malfeasance on the side of the Republicans. There's a reason why the Supreme Court ended up playing such an important rule: Congress hasn't done shit in decades now, and the same goes for the States, the last Constitutional Amendment was passed in 1992 and the one before that in 1971. Something like the right to abortion should have been enshrined into a constitutional amendment loooong ago. EPA rules should have been set by law, not by executive order. The list goes on and on and on.

And the last failsafe the founders intended was the populace. Officials found breaking the law or be otherwise unfit of office were supposed to be at the very least not reelected by the populace - and yet, Arpaio was reelected for 24 years in a row, Biden was elected (he was better than Trump, but that doesn't mean someone of his age should have been president!), and Trump will most likely be reelected. The voters share a huge part of the blame.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/31/joe-arpaio-c...

[sokoloff]

> Something like the right to abortion should have been enshrined into a constitutional amendment loooong ago.

Indeed, and practically, probably initiated as part of the 95th or 96th Congress (under Carter), when the Democrats had substantial majorities in both houses and obviously the presidency.

My feeling is that this was not done because doing it removes the threat/opportunity of it getting rolled back, and removing that threat/opportunity lessens the fundraising ability of both parties.

[salawat]

Actually more along the lines of:

An individual can be bad, but where they are, a group can generally be relied upon to rein them in. Groups can also be bad, but generally when individuals are removed from a group context, better sense prevails.

Juries balance the judge, just as the judge balances out the jury.

The Senate balances the House, just as the House balances the Senate.

The President only found balance in the checks of the other two branches, and the good sense and consciences of the electors in the Electoral College, who were empowered to be able to ignore the popular vote if upon vote casting time, their good sense deemed otherwise once they were removed from the influence of group dynamics.

[ignoramous]

> individual is bad, but groups are less bad

Bad groups tend to scape goat individuals until their next rodeo.

[mschuster91]

> The constitution was designed with the idea of preventing a king from coming to power.

And if the Republicans get their way with Project 2025, by all interpretations they'll create a King.

> The whole separation of powers thing presumes that an individual is bad, but groups are less bad.

It assumes at its core that even if individuals may pursue bad goals, that the larger society/organizations like parties or officials like the Electoral College will curtail their attempts.

Unfortunately, neither of these assumptions held true when faced with a demagogue like Trump.

[AnimalMuppet]

> The whole separation of powers thing presumes that an individual is bad, but groups are less bad.

No. Separation of powers comes down to "never give anybody power that someone else cannot block". That "someone else" needs to be independent, too - that's the "separation" part.

[tines]

> Separation of powers comes down to "never give anybody power that someone else cannot block". That "someone else" needs to be independent, too - that's the "separation" part.

That's what I said, in different words.

[oceanplexian]

> I think a big problem here is that all existing laws and the system concerning presidents rests on one very important assumption. That the commander in chief is a decent, rational human being that carefully considers his actions and holds the interest of the United States and the Citizens in high regards.

No, that's not what the existing laws or system rests on.

The system rests on the fact that the Commander in Chief is an elected representative, and therefore their actions represent the will of the people. Washington Post might not think he is rational. A random Judge might not think he is rational. You might not personally think he is rational. What is "rational" is determined at the ballot box, or via the impeachment process in the legislature.