There should probably be some kind of elected position, independent from the three branches, who's sole task is to veto presidential orders to the armed forces. The president having war powers without authorization of congress is probably desirable since congress is too slow, but some quick in the loop sanity check would be useful.

▲

uncanny2 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You mean like the ancient tradition of the Roman Censure. Someone who “monitors” the legislative branches and may “veto” any governmental action determined against the public good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor

▲

krapp 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The president having war powers without authorization of congress is probably desirable since congress is too slow, but some quick in the loop sanity check would be useful.

I disagree. The decision to go to war should always be slow and deliberate. I can't think of a single case where the President deciding to send troops on a whim without consulting Congress or getting their approval first ever worked out well.

▲

fragmede 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia in the Kosovo War by NATO did not have congressional approval and while it was not perfect or troops, I'd put it ever so slightly on the side of "well" vs the current debacle.

▲

mothballed 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I suppose the devil is in the details of "getting their approval" but it's worth noting Lincoln prosecuted the Civil War without seeking a declaration of war with congress.

▲

KylerAce 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's because the United States official position in the civil war was that the south was a part of the US that was in rebellion, and not a sovereign state that we were at war with.

▲

mothballed 14 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't see how that negates the action of sending of troops for combat. You're just arguing an excuse as to why congress wasn't sought to to declare war in this "case where the President decid[ed] to send troops." There is always some excuse for that nowadays, quite conveniently, so you're in good company.

	▲	vagrantJin 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Civil war is always an exception because of the special circumstances. Its not an act of war but a state of emergency which has it's own protocols regarding presidential powers.

▲

krapp 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That might be the one exception.

▲

readitalready 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A lot of government would be improved by making elected positions be very specific roles.

Why are we deciding military strategy from a guy that was elected to fix labor rights? Should the same guy running the school system also be in charge of selecting Supreme Court justices?

Also, the founding fathers had it right: An independent electoral college should decide elected positions, not the general public. Hiring decisions should be left up to people that are expert at hiring, not random people.

The only role the general public should have in government is deciding their representative - it's literally in the name!

And executive branch isn't supposed to be a representative. It's only role is to execute laws created by the representatives.

	▲	maxerickson 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Really pushing the definition of elected there.

▲

Jamesbeam 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That is what they have General Claude for.

Gen. Claude sometimes misjudges things and hallucinates but that’s alright, because the president said the enemy is bombing their own girl schools with tomahawks so it’s ok to grab them by the meow.

Something the president practiced for years on a far away island. Trust the process.