Should the President of the United States have any unchecked powers?

During the longest government shutdown in United States history, President Trump has threatened to call a national state of emergency to re-open the government and get work started on the southern border wall. This threat has caused some to wonder whether executive power is becoming unchecked in 21st century America.

The American Founders created a system of checks and balances and separation of powers in our Constitution to ensure that tyranny — the concentration of all powers in the hands of one body — did not form. However, during national emergencies (especially wartime and national security crises), power has tended to shift into the hands of the executive. In these times, the president is given broad powers that are largely unchecked in the name of security.

Supporters of unchecked presidential powers argue that the executive is the branch that is most adept at handling emergencies. They believe that since the president does not need to deliberate as Congress does, he or she can rapidly make decisions in times when citizens’ lives are in danger. This side fears that checking the executive’s power during a crisis will threaten national security. They also argue that a temporary unchecked executive is not unconstitutional as the president may need to take extraordinary steps in order to preserve the country he or she has sworn to protect.

Those who are opposed to an unchecked executive during national emergencies fear that handing power to one person, even for a short period, is a serious threat to liberty. They believe that some form of oversight should exist to ensure that the president does not abuse his or her power. This side also claims that giving unchecked power to one body is a violation of the spirit of the Constitution.

What do you think? Should the President of the United States have any unchecked powers?

Current Standings:
Yes: 17%
No: 82%
  • Dominick from Pennsylvania

    Unchecked power is needed during war and rebellion. Imagine trying to run a war when every move is subject to constant oversight by Congress or another governmental agency! War is not a place for compromise. How do you launch a campaign when you have to split limited resources across several different plans instead of executing just one? In all honesty, it is not even unchecked power anyways. Election occur constantly and the Founding Fathers have always reminded America that rebellion is always good every now and then.

    [read less]

    Unchecked power is needed during war and rebellion. Imagine trying to run a war when every move is subject to constant oversight by Congress or anoth…

    [read more]
    4
    • Noah from Virginia

      I agree with you that in times of war the President should not have restrictions in the time of war because then nothing would be able to happen with the Congress constantly vetoing the President’s decisions. However, war is the only instance in which the President should have unchecked powers. If the President had full time unchecked power then the government could turn into a monarchy or even a dictatorship.

      [read less]

      I agree with you that in times of war the President should not have restrictions in the time of war because then nothing would be able to happen with …

      [read more]
      0
    • TONY from Florida

      The War Powers Resolution of 1973 written in response to US involvement in Vietnam allowed the president 2 – 3 months to respond to a military emergency. After that Congress must approve of the mission and funding which they have done perhaps on too many occasions.

      The National Emergencies Act of 1976 was also written to curtail the power and scope of the executive but requires a veto proof majority to stifle such a request. So if Trump declares a National Emergency for a wall – which it clearly is not because if it was a Republican controlled Congress would have passed his $5.7 B. bill during the first two years – Only the Judicial Branch stands in his way.

      Tony Reyes
      Miami

      [read less]

      The War Powers Resolution of 1973 written in response to US involvement in Vietnam allowed the president 2 – 3 months to respond to a military emergen…

      [read more]
      0
    • Hadley from Indiana

      You just said we need it during rebellion, when our country literally cane into existence when we rebelled against an unchecked monarch.

      0
    • Katelin from Kansas

      If ones person power is limitless, then everyone would be pawns and our world would be thrown into madness and chaos.

      0
    • wyatt from Arizona

      in order to form a more perfect union we need to have liberties those liberties need some sort of protecting body the President need certain powers to remain unchecked because that is how they support wars police actions and provide aid to countries in need
      however having to many unchecked powers would cause problems in the government and would lead to interior discourse so regulating those powers is very important but the should exist nevertheless

      [read less]

      in order to form a more perfect union we need to have liberties those liberties need some sort of protecting body the President need certain powers to…

      [read more]
      0
    • Jacob from Oklahoma

      The reason we have Congress it to keep the president in check. Without Congress the president could basically do what he wants which constitutes as a dictator and that is not a democracy which is what America is. Back to the uncheck or checked powers of the president, small things in times of war doesn’t go through Congress. But declaring war should always go through Congress, if It didn’t they could basically reign terror on every country considering how much fire power America has. We have the president to speak for the people which not all presidents do, and the father’s of the constitution put in the checks and balances so the president can’t have uncontrollable power. Personally considering all that they did for this country I think that they were thinking for the people and not for one ruler. Which is basically what you want if you want a president with unchecked powers. But hey that’s just my opinion and I’m just providing facts so you can check your opinions and my facts.

      [read less]

      The reason we have Congress it to keep the president in check. Without Congress the president could basically do what he wants which constitutes as a …

      [read more]
      0
    • Aditi from Arizona

      Going to play devil’s advocate a little here. The POTUS should have unchecked power, but only in extreme cases, such as war or economic collapse. These cases of national emergency should be declared as so by Congress and the American people, in order to make it democratic. These small cases of unchecked power are the only way to restore order and to regain strength for the US’s political process. As soon as the US is back in a more calm state, the POTUS must relinquish this power peacefully and quickly.

      [read less]

      Going to play devil’s advocate a little here. The POTUS should have unchecked power, but only in extreme cases, such as war or economic collapse. Thes…

      [read more]
      0
    • Caleb from North Carolina

      We seem to have managed to make it work so far. And rebellion isn’t always good– hello there slaveholders in the Civil War. One man shouldn’t be able to make war on behalf of the entire US. That sort of thing is absurd and fraught with peril. Congress has to approve declarations of war, and that is as it should be.

      [read less]

      We seem to have managed to make it work so far. And rebellion isn’t always good– hello there slaveholders in the Civil War. One man shouldn’t be able…

      [read more]
      0
  • Leah from Virginia

    I believe that the President of the United States should be able to have some unchecked powers due to the fact that when faced with a crisis, action must be taken immediately. That means preventing the waste of time through debate in order to help others in times of war or any other national emergency. And only the president is able to step in and act swiftly in times of need such as these. Stated in the Constitution, the systems of checks and balances were put in place to prevent such actions of authority, although actions taken to better our country and better the well-being of the citizens within in it during events like a national security crisis call for the president to step in and act accordingly.

    [read less]

    I believe that the President of the United States should be able to have some unchecked powers due to the fact that when faced with a crisis, action m…

    [read more]
    1
  • wyatt from Arizona

    in the U.S the president is given certain unchecked powers such as government shutdown,troop movements,and military actions there are positives and negatives to this the president making an impromptu executive order could hurt the nation but waiting hours or days or weeks from approval from congress to move troops in foreign territory could potentially lead to the deaths of hundreds of our troops so within limitation there should be unchecked power but it should definitely go through some reform

    [read less]

    in the U.S the president is given certain unchecked powers such as government shutdown,troop movements,and military actions there are positives and ne…

    [read more]
    1
  • Brandon Nguyen from California

    The reason that the president should have unchecked powers is that he or she has to constantly deal with new problems and that affect us in this country. But the 4 year terms is way too short for a president and must time manage currently to fix this common issues.

    [read less]

    The reason that the president should have unchecked powers is that he or she has to constantly deal with new problems and that affect us in this count…

    [read more]
    1
  • Maddie from Michigan

    I say no because the president should not have free rain. Even though you are the president does not mean things should not get checked first. That is what I think.

    1
  • David from New Jersey

    The idea of POTUS having unchecked power is essential when it comes to running the government. Many might believe that the current POTUS should not have this type of power, but if it was out the previous POTUS, many would argue that he should have unchecked power. All I can say is this, the POTUS was elected for a reason. He earned the peoples trust. The people have put their trust in the POTUS, he shouldn’t be limited like a child. He knows what is best for the country.

    [read less]

    The idea of POTUS having unchecked power is essential when it comes to running the government. Many might believe that the current POTUS should not ha…

    [read more]
    1
  • Keelan from Florida

    It is important for us, as a democratic nation, to elect a leader that we can trust in these hard times. I believe the President should be able to declare a state of emergency for matters like these, because our country is suffering from the shut down, and it is his duty to keep this nation running best as it can. During wartime and national emergencies it is best to have somebody we can rely on to take things into their own hands and fix things as well, since this bipartisan government can be disfunctional alot, and thats not good during times of national emergency. It is the citizens duty to elect somebody that will use that power responsibly, however.

    [read less]

    It is important for us, as a democratic nation, to elect a leader that we can trust in these hard times. I believe the President should be able to dec…

    [read more]
    1
  • Taher from Virginia

    I do believe the president should have some unchecked powers. The executive is the branch that is most proficient at handling emergencies and so unchecked powers are necessary to make rapid decisions in response to the emergencies in order to protect the country. Yes, it can be said that there should be no unchecked powers or else it would defeat the purpose of “checks and balances” as outlined in the constitution. However, The government is far from fast and efficient and without unchecked powers, it would take too long for both the House of Representatives and the Senate to agree and approve a legislation and put it into effect. However, that won’t have to be a concern if the president possesses unchecked powers. Also, the president always has the citizens at his best interest so it’s very logical for the president to have some unchecked powers to preserve the country he or she has sworn to protect.

    [read less]

    I do believe the president should have some unchecked powers. The executive is the branch that is most proficient at handling emergencies and so unche…

    [read more]
    1
  • Jay from New Jersey

    The president should have certain unchecked powers, especially with a congress that cannot agree on anything. If a president has to deal with a revolt, responding to natural disasters, getting the military to go to the southern boarder to help protect the border as examples, he needs to have powers so that he can make choices to figure out where resources need to go without congressional approval.

    [read less]

    The president should have certain unchecked powers, especially with a congress that cannot agree on anything. If a president has to deal with a revo…

    [read more]
    1
  • Elijah from Kentucky

    I think yes, with so much checked power, little is being done in situations where it is needed. There are certain times where a fast unchecked decision would be beneficial. If the decision has to go through a long process of being approved by congress then it would be far too late to act in many cases. This unchecked power could also prevent government shutdowns that affect many peoples lives.

    [read less]

    I think yes, with so much checked power, little is being done in situations where it is needed. There are certain times where a fast unchecked decisio…

    [read more]
    1
  • Ollie from Oregon

    I think yes, in very limited situations should a sitting President have unchecked executive control. For example, the current government shutdown could have been completely avoided, if President Trump immediately used emergency power to build a border wall without congressional approval. He would get what he wanted, the Democrats would be happy that the government remained open, and the 800,000 Federal employees would have delayed paychecks.

    [read less]

    I think yes, in very limited situations should a sitting President have unchecked executive control. For example, the current government shutdown coul…

    [read more]
    1
  • Micah from Pennsylvania

    Unchecked powers are necessary to a society with a large government, such as America. I do think many and most powers should be “checked and balanced,” but in specific situations, such as a war requiring immediate action, congressional approval takes far too long to be effective. Also, the President is elected by a system in which the citizens’ opinions are usually the majority, so I think it would be a rare case for a president to make the wrong call in situations where unchecked powers have to be applied. The government is far from fast and efficient, and usually the President has the citizens as his best interest. Also, executive orders exist today and are very close to unchecked powers. More often than not, executive orders are used for the good of the people than not. Overall, I think unchecked powers are not only a good thing, but a necessary thing in a modern government system.

    [read less]

    Unchecked powers are necessary to a society with a large government, such as America. I do think many and most powers should be “checked and balanced,…

    [read more]
    1
  • Nicole from Virginia

    I believe that there are times where unchecked power is a necessity but strictly in times of war or national security. There are multiple times throughout American history where the executive branch’s unchecked power was essential to the safety of citizens not only in the U.S., but worldwide. For example, in 1941 just before the attacks on Pearl Harbor and U.S. entry into the Second World War looked imminent, The War Powers Act was passed in order to expand the President’s control over the war machine in time of war. It was vital for the decision making during the high speed war time process of events. And even more importantly, these Acts were checked by Congress in 1973 when Nixon was president and sending troops to Vietnam without much consultation with Congress. So, in conclusion, it is important for the executive branch to have unchecked powers during wartime and national crisis but given this power the leader of our country should be well informed and wary when taking such drastic measures so not to carry out an order that could be devastating and repressive in the long run.

    [read less]

    I believe that there are times where unchecked power is a necessity but strictly in times of war or national security. There are multiple times throug…

    [read more]
    0
  • Trinity from California

    I would actually argue that judicial power is being unchecked. The executive has almost no power, with perhaps the exception of the government shutdown, a move that most presidents would not have employed for fear of Congress standing against them as the Democrats are standing against Trump currently. The only branch with unchecked power is the judicial branch, from which unelected officials can legislate however they want. If they choose to “interpret” the Constitution a certain way, the people’s will can be overrode (see Obergefell vs Hodges).

    [read less]

    I would actually argue that judicial power is being unchecked. The executive has almost no power, with perhaps the exception of the government shutdow…

    [read more]
    5
    • Grace from Florida

      The executive branch has wide reaching powers, so wide in fact that they are running unchecked in the 21st century. President Trump’s ability to effect legislative decisions is far greater than it should be due to his party’s loyalty to him, which allowing him to deeply effect congress’ votes, hence the shut down. Republicans in the senate (Mitch McConnell) are so afraid of being ostracized by the president and their party that they aren’t doing what is absolutely essential for this country. Therefore, even when only considering the president’s implied and political powers, modern party politics has empowered him, more than ever.

      [read less]

      The executive branch has wide reaching powers, so wide in fact that they are running unchecked in the 21st century. President Trump’s ability to effec…

      [read more]
      0
    • Brianna from New Jersey

      As our founding fathers agreed that a system of checks and balances would prevent corruption and a tyranny, I too, believe that the president can not have all the say in the matter. Sometimes, our thoughts are clouded but we cannot see that , until after someone brings it to our attention. This is why , the journey of approving/vetoing a bill is crucial to prevent going into war without a real reason to.

      [read less]

      As our founding fathers agreed that a system of checks and balances would prevent corruption and a tyranny, I too, believe that the president can not …

      [read more]
      0
    • Dominick from Pennsylvania

      You are completely correct. Hamilton was wrong when he said it was the most benign branch. Just look how much the original meaning of the Constitution is changed!

      0
  • Noa from Virginia

    I think the president should NOT have any unchecked powers. The idea of checks and balances is used to prevent any branch of government from becoming too powerful, and keep each branch balanced out. If the president (executive branch) can go unchecked it defeats the purpose of checks and balances which is what our government is all about.

    [read less]

    I think the president should NOT have any unchecked powers. The idea of checks and balances is used to prevent any branch of government from becoming …

    [read more]
    1
    • peyton from Colorado

      Yes, I completely agree, the president of the US should not have any unchecked powers, and the idea of the branches is such a powerful topic in which we could expand on in so many ways. Checks and balances is exactly what our government is about.

      [read less]

      Yes, I completely agree, the president of the US should not have any unchecked powers, and the idea of the branches is such a powerful topic in which …

      [read more]
      0
  • Kim from Oregon

    No; it completely contradicts the checks and balances aspect of government. It gives one branch too much power, and branches should be able to check each other on everything to be sure that what is being done is constitutional.

    [read less]

    No; it completely contradicts the checks and balances aspect of government. It gives one branch too much power, and branches should be able to check e…

    [read more]
    1
    • peyton from Colorado

      Checks and balances is exactly what our government is about.

      0
  • Lara from Virginia

    I think the President should not have any unchecked powers. The U.S. Constitution has specially added the system of Checks and Balances to make sure no one branch gets more power than the others. This system also prevents the President (executive branch) of getting too much power and becoming a Tyrant.

    [read less]

    I think the President should not have any unchecked powers. The U.S. Constitution has specially added the system of Checks and Balances to make sure n…

    [read more]
    1
  • Freya from Virginia

    The president of the United States should not have any unchecked powers. In the preamble to our constitution the federal government must “establish justice.” As a country that prides itself on being democratic and having equally powerful branches of the government, the government would not be fulfilling the constitution if the judicial branch is unable to check a law trying to be put in place by the executive branch. Even in a time of distress the president must adhere to our constitution of establishing justice and ensuring they follow the rules of checks and balances within our government.

    [read less]

    The president of the United States should not have any unchecked powers. In the preamble to our constitution the federal government must “establish …

    [read more]
    1
  • Rachel from Kentucky

    In order to make sure that he’s/she’s not only thinking of themselves but of the people too.

    1
  • Tina from Michigan

    The unchecked powers discussed in the Constitution was created to prevent any ruler from absolute power. Absolute power from the citizens’ natural born rights, and to keep the Executove (or any) branch from having more power than another, leaving them unknown about what it happening in the government.

    [read less]

    The unchecked powers discussed in the Constitution was created to prevent any ruler from absolute power. Absolute power from the citizens’ natural bor…

    [read more]
    1
  • Anuj from New Jersey

    I believe that giving the president any unchecked powers would potentially compromise the whole point of congress and the government. The point of a democracy is to make sure that the President does not have any unprecedented powers and use that to his advantage.

    [read less]

    I believe that giving the president any unchecked powers would potentially compromise the whole point of congress and the government. The point of a d…

    [read more]
    1
  • Hadley from Indiana

    The United States was set up to prevent any leader from having absolute power. Absolute power corrupts. No country can successfully serve its citizens without limits to what any one individual can do without input, or consideration from others. The Executive Branch is not, not has it ever been more powerful than any other branch of government. It was designed that way to prevent genocide, corruption and abuse of power. And it must stay that way.

    [read less]

    The United States was set up to prevent any leader from having absolute power. Absolute power corrupts. No country can successfully serve its citizens…

    [read more]
    1
  • Sarah from Montana

    The president should not have any unchecked powers based on the fact that no branch should be more powerful then the others, this would create an unchecked democracy leaving branchs confused of out of the loop of things happening in the government.

    [read less]

    The president should not have any unchecked powers based on the fact that no branch should be more powerful then the others, this would create an unch…

    [read more]
    1
  • Stephanie from Alabama

    If powers are left unchecked, there will be no balance of society.

    1
  • Benjamin from Virginia

    The president should not have any unlimited powers. The American system is based around the concept of “rule by the people” – that the citizens’ proxies, their representatives, are the ones running the country. Since the citizens reelect them, the representatives are required to abide by what the majority of citizens want. One person with limitless power, even for a short time, is not similarly restrained. It opens up unpleasant possibilities – what if an emergency occurs just as the old president should be stepping down? Surely it’s better to break the term limit than to respond slowly to an emergency? – and almost mirrors the dictator of the Roman Empire, a position that did not end well for the people. Decisions may be made more slowly, but the people and their American ideals are safe.

    [read less]

    The president should not have any unlimited powers. The American system is based around the concept of “rule by the people” – that the citizens’ proxi…

    [read more]
    1
  • Amaya from Michigan

    While having the president’s decisions being constantly checked may slow down decision making a little, it is better than letting a president do whatever they see fit when a large majority of the nation disagrees with them. As the United States is seeing right now, there are little regulations to what a president can declare a national emergency to get what they want. The president has many tricks and loopholes at their disposal to obtain their goals, and the government shutdown method that Trump is currently using is only one of them. Imagine, for example, if in the future a president is elected who, unknown to voters until it is too late, has an evil streak. Whether they are obsessed with starting a war no one wants or are blatantly racist, it could be hard to stop such a president. As long as they avoid breaking the law, which they probably could, considering how well they would have to be versed in law and government to even reach presidency in the first place, there is little the nation could do to get rid of them other than wait out the years left until they can be elected out of office. Just waiting could leave the nation in a bad position, as such a president could ruin relations with other countries fairly easily, not to mention what damage they could do in the United States. And while some may call for the president’s removal through impeachment, there is little chance of it actually working when we look at impeachment’s history.

    [read less]

    While having the president’s decisions being constantly checked may slow down decision making a little, it is better than letting a president do whate…

    [read more]
    1
  • Ethan from Washington

    I believe that if the president has ANY unchecked powers, he/she may branch off of that and ultimately become a tyrant

    1
  • Sophia from Michigan

    NO, the president should not be able to have unchecked powers because the legislative, executive, and the judicial branch are meant to have checks and balances so that none can overrule the other.

    [read less]

    NO, the president should not be able to have unchecked powers because the legislative, executive, and the judicial branch are meant to have checks and…

    [read more]
    1
  • kaitlyn from Michigan

    The president could in turn become corrupt and if he had unchecked powers he could ruin our country. also it is safer for the citizens to have the president ‘s power checked so they can keep their rights and everything

    [read less]

    The president could in turn become corrupt and if he had unchecked powers he could ruin our country. also it is safer for the citizens to have the pre…

    [read more]
    1
  • jasmine from New York

    No i don’t think the president should have full unchecked power because then at that point we just have a monarch. The whole point we have checks & balances is so that laws can be more just and we dont have an absolute ruler.

    [read less]

    No i don’t think the president should have full unchecked power because then at that point we just have a monarch. The whole point we have checks &amp…

    [read more]
    0
  • Nicole from California

    No, the president of the United States should not have any unchecked powers. Our nation was established on the idea of checks and balances. This concept is to keep any branch of government form overstepping its powers in the face of conflict. In any time of injustice, the president should always remember the ideals of the constitution and always establish fairness for all. If the president has free range, they go against the constitution and revoke the principle of what our nation was founded on. Our nation was based on principle of democracy, where everyone has a say in what our country is able to do. In order to secure this principle, we must not allow the president to have any unchecked powers.

    [read less]

    No, the president of the United States should not have any unchecked powers. Our nation was established on the idea of checks and balances. This conce…

    [read more]
    0
  • Gracie from California

    I believe that the president should not be allowed to have any unchecked powers, as it not only negates the job of the government but also enables the president to take the country on a path leading towards tyranny. The government was set up with branches in order check the power of the president and make decisions that not only benefitted one person, but the general public. Every single person has different ideas of what is right and wrong, including the president. If the president is allowed to make decisions by himself/herself with unchecked power, the fate of the country literally falls in the hands of a single person and their opinions. If this power is checked, more people are involved in making decisions, therefore, they are more likely to make decisions that are more widely accepted by a larger group of people, not only the president. Also, tyranny is an issue that would be hard to avoid if power was unchecked. Overall, checks and balances were created to ensure a democracy and that the president was not able to take advantage of the power given to him/her. Unchecked powers could potentially lead to the president misusing his/her power and ultimately putting the lives of Americans at risk.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president should not be allowed to have any unchecked powers, as it not only negates the job of the government but also enables the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ashley from Michigan

    I think that the president should not have any unchecked powers. Checks and balances are used to prevent any branch of government from becoming too powerful and to keep each branch equal. I also think that the president should not be able to have unchecked powers because of the legislative, judicial and executive branches are meant to have checks and balances so that none can overrule the others.

    [read less]

    I think that the president should not have any unchecked powers. Checks and balances are used to prevent any branch of government from becoming too po…

    [read more]
    0
  • Victoria from Colorado

    All ideas of any human being are not all good ones, so if a president had no one to check their choices then some of the things they would end up doing would not all be beneficial for all of America.

    [read less]

    All ideas of any human being are not all good ones, so if a president had no one to check their choices then some of the things they would end up doin…

    [read more]
    0
  • John from Tennessee

    For the most part, no. In normal government operation, having checks and balances to limit the president’s power is absolutely essential. This allows the president to not have enough power to do whatever he wants without the necessary oversight. With this being said, it’s not a question on whether he should have any unchecked powers at all. Even if Congress wasn’t allowed to touch him on some things, the courts wouldn’t be subjected to this and would, thus, have the power to strike down anything they want and/or need to.

    [read less]

    For the most part, no. In normal government operation, having checks and balances to limit the president’s power is absolutely essential. This allow…

    [read more]
    0
  • Connor from Washington

    Checks and balances are part of what creates democracy The powers of Congress and the Supreme Court keep the president from taking adavantage of his status and creating a government to powerful. This keeps the government from becoming too powerful and inflicting harm on the American people.

    [read less]

    Checks and balances are part of what creates democracy The powers of Congress and the Supreme Court keep the president from taking adavantage of his …

    [read more]
    0
  • John from New York

    The entire system of government of the United States is based on checks and balances, which keeps power, ultimately coming from the people, from becoming too centralized in any one person’s or branch’s hands. Any branch, but especially the executive having an unchecked power, however small, could threaten that system. For instance, the president’s ability to declare a national emergency. Given the oath of loyalty that President Trump attempted to get from Jim Comey, it can be assumed that he may also have asked for oaths from other department or organization heads. And an oath of loyalty to the president instead of the constitution, during a national emergency, could lead to a dictatorship. A broad interpretation of the law on national emergencies by the FBI, CIA, or NSA head could allow the president to stave off a court hearing by ending communications nationwide, or use other methods to suppress the power of the other branches. Given the dangers, the necessity of direct oversight by another branch of government that the department heads, the people ultimately responsible for most internal governmental action, recognize and respond to above the president.

    [read less]

    The entire system of government of the United States is based on checks and balances, which keeps power, ultimately coming from the people, from becom…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ruchi from Virginia

    I don’t think that the president should have any unchecked powers. The basic foundations of our government are the ideas of checks and balances and separation of powers. To give a branch some sort of absolute power would be a violation of the Constitution itself. Over time, the executive branch has become more and more influential, which has been seen as controversial. Giving the president an unlimited power would only add to the executive branches already immense powers and possibly cause a larger rift between the executive and legislative branches.

    [read less]

    I don’t think that the president should have any unchecked powers. The basic foundations of our government are the ideas of checks and balances and s…

    [read more]
    0
  • Melissa from Florida

    The President should not have unchecked powers because we need to maintain order and balance in our country. If any president has unchecked powers he will do what he wants without any form of checks and balances. The government can become corrupt and this will have a ripple effect on our country.

    [read less]

    The President should not have unchecked powers because we need to maintain order and balance in our country. If any president has unchecked powers he …

    [read more]
    0
  • Paige from Virginia

    The President of the United States, as commander in chief/chief executive, should be able to have the power to make unilateral decisions in times of extreme emergencies, but unilateral doesn’t necessary mean unchecked. If limitations are properly placed on that power, limitations including extent of power, time, circumstances, etc., and these limitations are specific and not left up to interpretation, we could make the power being given is not abused, and are therefore there is a check on the president’s power.
    The Constitution does state that each branch has specific powers and each power is checked by another branch. It is necessary that each branch is held accountable and does not have any powers that aren’t checked in some shape or form.

    [read less]

    The President of the United States, as commander in chief/chief executive, should be able to have the power to make unilateral decisions in times of e…

    [read more]
    0
  • Emily from Michigan

    I do not think the president should have unchecked powers because one could lead to another, and from the way our government is now, it could lead to a series of events that are corrupted. Besides, we have a strong system of checks and balances where, in the case that something happens, is supposed to prevent any tyranny.

    [read less]

    I do not think the president should have unchecked powers because one could lead to another, and from the way our government is now, it could lead to …

    [read more]
    0
  • Lizeth from Texas

    The president should not have unchecked powers. Without checks and balances, no democracy is established, a core belief to the American constitution. Without a democracy America will fall into a rule that is similar to a dictatorship, displaying regulations that do not align with the American people’s ideology. Presidency, in America, is also not a position that is supposed to be managed separately; the senate and house of representatives play a huge role in controlling the laws and authority from the president. Even then democracy may be corrupt, but it is far more balanced than if a president like Trump were to solely responsible for an entire country with divided beliefs.

    [read less]

    The president should not have unchecked powers. Without checks and balances, no democracy is established, a core belief to the American constitution. …

    [read more]
    0
  • Pavit from New Jersey

    The President should not have unchecked powers because that could lead to a potential toxic leadership where the President could do anything that they wished without opposition. This could lead to bad things happening such as unnecessary war and taxes being raised without being needed.

    [read less]

    The President should not have unchecked powers because that could lead to a potential toxic leadership where the President could do anything that they…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sydney from Minnesota

    Although the President is to make final decisions, he or she is only one person, and therefore the decision should be looked over to make sure it is the best one for the country.

    0
  • Jeremy from Pennsylvania

    Having the president have unchecked powers would destroy what would make America unique in the first place, its partitioning of power. The three branch’s of government were meant to separate the powers of the government to combat one person having absolute power, which has proven to be more detrimental to a country then beneficial. The whole reason America was born was due to the fact that the King of England taxed the colonies to the point of war, the US govermwnt was made to be rival the Monarchies of the time. Giving the president such unchecked powers would put him on Dictator like lines, something America is not for. Giving the president unchecked powers will only make matters worse in this most precarious of times for the US Goverment.

    [read less]

    Having the president have unchecked powers would destroy what would make America unique in the first place, its partitioning of power. The three branc…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tara from Kentucky

    The branches of the federal government were formed so that there would be no one governing body. If one side goes unchecked for a substantial amount of time, then our federal government isn’t doing what it needs to lead the American people down the right path, especially in terms of the president. Certain things that the president does could have disastrous effects on the laws and regulations of the US as a whole and how we go about our business.

    [read less]

    The branches of the federal government were formed so that there would be no one governing body. If one side goes unchecked for a substantial amount o…

    [read more]
    0
  • Anna from Kentucky

    No, I think that giving unchecked power to one person is dangerous and goes agest what our country is about. If the president had unchecked power then it would not be an even distribution of power. our founders wanted the 3 branches to come together to form one power, but they can’t do that with unchecked power given to the president.

    [read less]

    No, I think that giving unchecked power to one person is dangerous and goes agest what our country is about. If the president had unchecked power then…

    [read more]
    0
  • Megan from Kentucky

    I don’t think the president should have any unchecked powers because he/she could miss use their powers of being president and the government go down. The government is already messed up right now, why make it worse.

    [read less]

    I don’t think the president should have any unchecked powers because he/she could miss use their powers of being president and the government go down….

    [read more]
    0
  • Kassidy from Kentucky

    I think that the President should not have any unchecked powers. If the President had unchecked powers he could do whatever he wanted. He could abuse his power and gain more power from having unchecked powers. By having checked powers people can keep the President in line and stop him from making decisions that could hurt the US in any way.

    [read less]

    I think that the President should not have any unchecked powers. If the President had unchecked powers he could do whatever he wanted. He could abuse …

    [read more]
    0
  • Alexa from Kentucky

    I do not believe that is fair to put the countries future and well-being in one person’s hands. This, in the long run, promotes a dictator-like mentality and give one body too much power. Check and balances allow for a fair and just way of going about issues and decisions that includes inputs from multiple parties.

    [read less]

    I do not believe that is fair to put the countries future and well-being in one person’s hands. This, in the long run, promotes a dictator-like mental…

    [read more]
    0
  • Lauren from Kentucky

    No, I don’t think the President should have any unchecked powers because of the consequences that could come from this. If the president had all of the power for themselves, there would be no room for other opinions and the power would not be equally distributed.

    [read less]

    No, I don’t think the President should have any unchecked powers because of the consequences that could come from this. If the president had all of th…

    [read more]
    0
  • maguire from Kentucky

    I believe that the President’s decisions on the National Security should run through a department of the government to keep the checks and balances in check. The president should not have that amount of power within our country, he is our (citizens) voice and no more. The president should be required to listen to his fellow people in America on their opinions of the conflict.

    [read less]

    I believe that the President’s decisions on the National Security should run through a department of the government to keep the checks and balances in…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tanner from Kentucky

    I think that the president should NOT have the right to have unchecked powers because he/she could abuse their powers, and the constitution is set up to distribute the power equally, so that not one person is fully powerful.

    [read less]

    I think that the president should NOT have the right to have unchecked powers because he/she could abuse their powers, and the constitution is set up …

    [read more]
    0
  • Brennan from Kentucky

    I don’t think the president should have any unchecked powers because it would throw the branches of government in a spiral. If we have kept the same kind of government for this long why would we change anything that major?

    [read less]

    I don’t think the president should have any unchecked powers because it would throw the branches of government in a spiral. If we have kept the same k…

    [read more]
    0
  • Noah from Kentucky

    The reason I say no is because although I am a fan of Trump as president, I think he is irrational and needs help when making some of his decisions. If he was able to make decision on his own I think he would make some mistakes and it has not been very successful in the past with other countries as well.

    [read less]

    The reason I say no is because although I am a fan of Trump as president, I think he is irrational and needs help when making some of his decisions. I…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jonathan from Kentucky

    I believe the President should not have unchecked power mainly due to the fact that we are all human. The Supreme Court and Congress have multiple, intelligent individuals that are capable of offering their opinions to the President. Thus saying that the President is NOT infallible, so he cannot make every decision for himself. Bouncing ideas off of other people is extremely beneficial to him and the people of the United States

    [read less]

    I believe the President should not have unchecked power mainly due to the fact that we are all human. The Supreme Court and Congress have multiple, in…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brent from Kentucky

    The President of the United States should have no unchecked powers. It would be complete ludicrousy to even let one of our branches of government have unchecked powers. The President and the Executive Branch already has little to no real power without the use of Congress and the Judicial Branch, but regardless the President should not have unchecked powers. What people may believe to be an “unchecked power” is the President’s ability to create an executive order. However, with the President’s ability to make Executive Orders, it is still checked by the Supreme Court and determined whether of not if it is constitutional. A reason being for checks and balances even goes back to the time of monarchies, more specifically when the United States was a colony under the British Empire. We declared independence from an absolute monarchy, and declared ourselves a Democratic Republic. We have these checks and balances to make sure that one branch does not receive too much power to take complete control of the nation.

    [read less]

    The President of the United States should have no unchecked powers. It would be complete ludicrousy to even let one of our branches of government have…

    [read more]
    0
  • Josh from Kentucky

    There is no reason for one person to have unchecked powers in our modern life. As seen with many cases of presidents in other countries with unchecked power the result is deadly (See Fujimori of Peru). To have one person making the calls under an extreme circumstance is necessary. However, they should not go unchecked. A more reasonable option would allow the president to make executive orders that are enacted until they are seen as unconstitutional by the supreme court or until the crisis has ended. This bypass from Congress will make orders come out fast yet keep them reasonable through a check from the judicial system.

    [read less]

    There is no reason for one person to have unchecked powers in our modern life. As seen with many cases of presidents in other countries with unchecke…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sydney from Kentucky

    The president should not have unchecked powers because one person should not have complete authority over the government. If that were the case then the people of the United States wouldn’t really have any say in anything at that point. The power could go to the presidents head and he could basically be doing whatever he wanted so then America would no longer be a democracy really. It would change our government all together. He may make some good choices for us but not all will be good which could in the long run hurt America. We would no longer have the freedom to do things that may go with the amendment.

    [read less]

    The president should not have unchecked powers because one person should not have complete authority over the government. If that were the case then t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Madelyn from Kentucky

    I do not believe that the President should have unchecked powers because it goes against the Founding Fathers’ system of checks and balances and would therefore take away liberty of the citizens of the United States. If the President were to receive unchecked powers one time, in a state of emergency, he will most likely continue to act without approval from Congress and could then lead to a sort of dictatorship. Congress would have no say in any laws or actions made by the Executive Branch which would result in the loss of freedom from citizens.

    [read less]

    I do not believe that the President should have unchecked powers because it goes against the Founding Fathers’ system of checks and balances and would…

    [read more]
    0
  • Audrey from Kentucky

    I think that no branch of government should have unchecked powers because not one person/group should be able to make the decisions. During emergencies, I think that a selective amount of people should be used to make quick decisions but not one person making them all. One person might not see something someone else would notice so if they have others to help them then better decisions can be made.

    [read less]

    I think that no branch of government should have unchecked powers because not one person/group should be able to make the decisions. During emergencie…

    [read more]
    0
  • Natalie from Kentucky

    I believe our government is still as effective as it is today because of the system of checks and balances. This keeps one part of government from attaining too much power. If the executive branch was given unchecked power, even during a crisis, the decisions made during that time period may not reflect the people’s’ vote or their beliefs. However, I do believe that maybe the checks and balances system may need to be a little more lenient under extreme circumstances for the good of the people. Keeping checks and balances in place though without giving the executive branch complete control will prevent any rash and unconstitutional decisions.

    [read less]

    I believe our government is still as effective as it is today because of the system of checks and balances. This keeps one part of government from at…

    [read more]
    0
  • Reese from Kentucky

    The president should not have unchecked power because each branch of our government equally distributes the amount of power. If the president was granted unchecked power it would change our government into more of a dictatorship, allowing the president to do whatever he wants. The decisions should be based on the peoples opinion.

    [read less]

    The president should not have unchecked power because each branch of our government equally distributes the amount of power. If the president was gran…

    [read more]
    0
  • Megan from Texas

    No, the president should not have unchecked powers, just as Congress and the Supreme Court should not have unchecked powers. One person holding absolute authority over government powers is a direct violation of the founding fathers’ idea of a limited government. It goes back to taxation without representation; no one wishes to be a part of an issue (or war, in serious cases) in which they have no say. While not all choices made by a single leader in charge are bound to be detrimental to a nation, no leader is perfect. The very basis of our form of government is dividing power among branches of government to best protect people’s individual rights.

    [read less]

    No, the president should not have unchecked powers, just as Congress and the Supreme Court should not have unchecked powers. One person holding absolu…

    [read more]
    0
  • Mamadou from Maryland

    • Living in a system without any checks and balances is truly living in a society being govern under a dictatorship. Our founding fathers wanted for each branch of government to be evaluated so that not one becomes over powerful. The fact that giving the President Of The United States leeway towards being extra too powerful is going against our countries living documents ( U.S. Constitution) and our countries democracy. This reason doesn’t just go for the President, but to all agencies listed under the Constitution. Coming together as a nation and resolving our nations burdens, shows the strength of our countries democracy and the respect of one other without opting to be too powerful.

    [read less]

    • Living in a system without any checks and balances is truly living in a society being govern under a dictatorship. Our founding fathers wanted for…

    [read more]
    0
  • Caleb from North Carolina

    I daresay the Constitution has already provided for a secure Presidential system. Obviously, there are going to be times that the President does things (like appoint justices to the Supreme Court) that I do not support, but overall I would say the system of checks and balances in place already is sufficient. Realistically, Article II of the Constitution provides an explanation of the concrete powers of the President, and actually, the only completely unchecked power the President has (that I would consider nationally significant) is the ability to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States. The other significant ones are all qualified by “with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

    [read less]

    I daresay the Constitution has already provided for a secure Presidential system. Obviously, there are going to be times that the President does thing…

    [read more]
    0
  • Benjamin from Pennsylvania

    The executive should have no unchecked power whatsoever. Arguments for unchecked power during time of war make the mistake of justifying war at all. The only just war the United States has ever been involved was the Revolutionary War, and in that war you see a decentralized effort to defeat the British. Even during the War of 1812, the majority of troops were private militia groups that would just defend their territory. The military remained decentralized until President Lincoln centralized it to fight the unjust war against the Southern states. The United States does not need a centralized military to fight a war, and it certainly does not need an unchecked executive to fight these wars. Wartime powers only serve to increase the size and scope of government anyway. In addition to this, the current crisis President Trump is using to justify invoking unchecked power is a complete fabrication. There is no correlation with crime statistics and illegal immigration that points to say that illegal immigration causes an increased amount of crime, and most crimes that illegal immigrants commit are drug related crimes that are victimless and should not be subject to government control. Unchecked executive power is not needed at anytime, and we should not fabricate crises to justify ceding power over to an executive.

    [read less]

    The executive should have no unchecked power whatsoever. Arguments for unchecked power during time of war make the mistake of justifying war at all. T…

    [read more]
    0
  • Andrew from New Jersey

    The founders created and formulated our way of government with the intention to prevent any branch of government from becoming to powerful. Historically speaking when one individual aquires unchecked power they tend to abuse it later down their term/rule

    [read less]

    The founders created and formulated our way of government with the intention to prevent any branch of government from becoming to powerful. Historical…

    [read more]
    0
  • Frederic from California

    As with any other American, one does not have to seek far to find nations with executive branches that have unchecked powers. Through history and different nations, each an experiment on unchecked powers, each ultimately failing due to the lack of consent by the people. I understand I am preaching to the choir here, but the executive branch currently has great vested powers, being able to decide taxes, order airstrikes via executive order etc.. However, these powers have very minimal, if not, foreign, effects if not for the existence of the judicial and the legislative branches. If unchecked power is given to the executive branch, they, and only they, can decide all policies, becoming judge, jury, and executioner of this nation.

    [read less]

    As with any other American, one does not have to seek far to find nations with executive branches that have unchecked powers. Through history and diff…

    [read more]
    0
  • Rachel from Pennsylvania

    Everyone in power should always have their decisions checked. No one should have the power to make decisions for what only they believe helps the country for the common good.

    0
  • Dayton from Missouri

    I think no because just because he is the president does not mean he needs unchecked powers. The reason the 3 branches work is that everythinf each branch does is checked by another branch. It keeps the power equal.

    [read less]

    I think no because just because he is the president does not mean he needs unchecked powers. The reason the 3 branches work is that everythinf each br…

    [read more]
    0
  • Luis from Virginia

    I say no because the we have a set system in which each branch has their own way of limiting the power of the other one in a triangle system. If the president were to get unchecked powers then it would make the whole system unbalanced and unfair to the other branches of government.

    [read less]

    I say no because the we have a set system in which each branch has their own way of limiting the power of the other one in a triangle system. If the p…

    [read more]
    0
  • Juan from Virginia

    The President should not have unchecked powers even in times of war. This is due to two reasons. One is that it can be a threat to the liberty of America citizens and the other is that there could be a lot of mistakes made if only one person is making decisions. The framers of the Constitution implemented checks and balances for each branch so one could not have too much power. However, if the powers of the President were unchecked, even for a short period of time, they could have unlimited power to do what they please. This undermines the principles of democracy that this nation is based upon. There is a valid reason for the President to have unchecked powers during wartime since quick decisions need to be made, but no one could technically stop them from making a decision that is not the best for the country. During wartime, decisions need to be well thought out because any mistake could have drastic consequences, therefore, the President should make decisions with the help of Congress and not on their own. When the President has unchecked powers giving them the ability to execute decisions without the approval of others most perspectives would not be taken into account and the decision would be made through single-minded view possibly not taking better options into consideration.

    [read less]

    The President should not have unchecked powers even in times of war. This is due to two reasons. One is that it can be a threat to the liberty of Amer…

    [read more]
    0
  • Malerie from Missouri

    Decision making for our country is incredibly important. The president should always have someone to hold him accountable and to make sure what he is doing is the best for our country. No one person should hold all of the power – ever.

    [read less]

    Decision making for our country is incredibly important. The president should always have someone to hold him accountable and to make sure what he is …

    [read more]
    0
  • Keith from New Jersey

    When responding to this I am not answering in accordance to a fear of dictatorship, but rather the issues that come when working alone. Although it is said that in a time of crisis we are better off with the president make decisions on their own for a faster response, providing unchecked powers, this is a very fragile way to respond. When the president acts “unchecked” it is only the idea of a single man/women leaving much room for error. It is impossible for a single person to see from every perspective and take all variables into account which is why its imperative to work with a team, dwarfing room for error.

    [read less]

    When responding to this I am not answering in accordance to a fear of dictatorship, but rather the issues that come when working alone. Although it i…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kylie from Alaska

    Unchecked power is a way straight to a toxic dictatorship. All power must be somewhat checked at least. In this particular case, Trump is abusing his presidential powers, so he certainly should not have unchecked power at this moment because he’s abusing the powers he already has. If we let trump declare a national emergency at this moment and go through with the wall, it could potentially create a precedence that could lead into unchecked power in the executive branch which, as I said earlier, is a really bad idea.

    [read less]

    Unchecked power is a way straight to a toxic dictatorship. All power must be somewhat checked at least. In this particular case, Trump is abusing his …

    [read more]
    0
  • Emma from Oregon

    Of course the executive branch shouldn’t be allowed unbridled power. Any form of government needs constant supervision to ensure it hasn’t moved beyond its intentional restraints. I would argue that every branch of our government is far too powerful at this point. However, to claim that President Trump is the first president to take his power too far or even that he has gone beyond what other presidents have done isn’t right either. President’s have been overstepping since the the New Deal. However, the particular actions President Trump has taken, with regards to the southern border, are not, in my opinion, an abuse of presidential power.

    [read less]

    Of course the executive branch shouldn’t be allowed unbridled power. Any form of government needs constant supervision to ensure it hasn’t moved b…

    [read more]
    0
  • Joanne from Ohio

    If any branch of government had any type of unchecked power, that would set the precedence for other branches to also have some unchecked powers. It would make it very difficult, then, for the other branches to check or balance out the unchecked power. Basically, depending on the magnitude of the power, it could be extremely detrimental to the United States government.

    [read less]

    If any branch of government had any type of unchecked power, that would set the precedence for other branches to also have some unchecked powers. It …

    [read more]
    0