6 replies to this topic

[iMusliMariam]

I was just wondering, what do you think are some qualities or characteristics that make a president a good president I'll share my answers later insha-Allah. wasalaam

[Wanderer]

I was just wondering, what do you think are some qualities or characteristics that make a president a good president I'll share my answers later insha-Allah. wasalaam

Here is my list of what would make a good president of a republic:

• The president must understand that he or she is a president of a republic, and not a monarch of a kingdom nor a dictator nor emperor of an empire.
• The president must uphold the constitution of the republic to the best of his or her ability.
• The president must be strong enough to resist any attempts to attain more power than is granted by the republic's constitution he or she is bound to uphold.
• The president would understand that he or she is not exempt from the law.
• The president must understand that he or she does not have the power to create laws or to unilaterally declare war on another nation or group.
• The president must obey any court order if that order is constitutional.
• The president must act, with force if necessary, to repel any IMMINENT danger to the people of the republic.
• The president would exhaust all possible diplomatic options with hostile nations/groups before considering using force.
• If the legislative body of the republic declares war, then the president would carry out, to the best of his or her ability, the duties of Commander-in-Chief to meet all the stated objectives in the declaration of war as quickly as possible while minimizing casualties on both sides.
• The president would not rejoice with the injury or death of any human being.
• The president must understand that he or she is the "face" of the entire citizenry that he or she represents, and should act accordingly as to not embarrass the people of the republic.
• The president would know that he or she cannot run the world, cannot run the lives of people, and cannot run the economy, and would take no actions toward any of those three things. Only the people themselves can "run" those things.
• The president would promote and protect the civil liberties of the republic's citizenry.

That's just off the top of my head.

Edited by Wanderer, 02 June 2012 - 04:24 PM.

[Aligarr]

Yea now go find one , because every President going back in recent history to atleast Stonewall Jackson , has broken at least "one or MORE of your rules " . In case you hadn't noticed , in a DEMOCRATIC Republic [USA] ,that there are three branches of government to ensure a system of checks and balances . And The Supreme Court , has the final word on what is Constitutional and what is not . Nullification is not an option in a Democratic Republic .

BTW , the Constitution , NOT the President ENSURES the citizenry protection of their civil liberties as prescribed in the Constitution . These things have not and should not be left to whims or notions of any ONE man , not even the President .

Edited by Aligarr, 03 June 2012 - 11:05 AM.

[Wanderer]

Yea now go find one , because every President going back in recent history to atleast Stonewall Jackson , has broken at least "one or MORE of your rules " . In case you hadn't noticed , in a DEMOCRATIC Republic [USA] ,that there are three branches of government to ensure a system of checks and balances . And The Supreme Court , has the final word on what is Constitutional and what is not . Nullification is not an option in a Democratic Republic .

BTW , the Constitution , NOT the President ENSURES the citizenry protection of their civil liberties as prescribed in the Constitution . These things have not and should not be left to whims or notions of any ONE man , not even the President .

Imagine that, a human being that doesn't 100% fulfill your expectations. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that conforms to whatever list of criteria you come up with. The Congress hasn't done much in relation to its responsibilities lately in terms of declaring war or curbing presidential overreach. Neither has the Supreme Court said to the current president, "No you can't just unilaterally decide to assassinate American citizens."

Also, a democratic republic is still a republic. Either way it's not supposed to be a monarchy nor an empire. We just happen to use democratic elections to choose our legislators and executives instead of undemocratic methods that are used in other republics. But it's still a republic.

The whole list I gave boiled down to the president basically being chained down by the Constitution, which also chains down the legislature and the judiciary. I also hinted at the separation of powers in my list; I'm not sure how you didn't get that.

Nullification didn't even enter my mind when I wrote my list because nullification originates more with the legislative rather than the executive branch. In our FEDERATION, we have two main levels of government: national and state. Nullification is a tool that has been used in the past both for noble and ignoble purposes by state legislatures who disagreed with laws passed by the national legislature. Nullification is yet another check against runaway government, only in this case it's between the levels of government, not between the branches of the national government. If the three branches in the national government colluded together against the states, then without nullification the states and their state constitutions would have no recourse to protect their citizens from a tyrannical federal government.

In fact, while we're at it, might as well bring up JURY NULLIFICATION as well. Just because the legislature passes a law and judges don't find anything wrong with it, that doesn't mean that juries cannot judge the law as well as the crime. As noted earlier, human beings are not 100% infallible, so when they draft these laws, they cannot foresee every single instance in which the law may be applied or even abused by the executive. Even if they are temporary, juries are still a part of the judicial branch, and they can always vote to not convict a person based upon misapplication of the law or they find the law itself is unjust or unconstitutional in the specific case they examine. Jury nullification serves as a necessary check by individual citizens against the government, as well as a judicial check against legislatures and executives.

Still though, I don't know exactly what set you off since there wasn't any real disagreement in the first place beyond nullification. Since the topic was only about the president, I listed what would make a good president. If the question said what would make a good government, I would have listed things pertaining to the legislature and the courts, as well as different levels of government and the responsibilities of individual citizens.

Edited by Wanderer, 03 June 2012 - 04:12 PM.

[Nightingale]

As Wanderer said, the President is the face of the country, as exists in the United States. And yes the Constitution upholds the civil rights of the people, but the President must defend the Constitution or press for change (if the Constitution violates civil rights) instead of just being silent. A good president has to be able to negotiate and compromise in my opinion. Also, I believe that the president must be a man or woman of good character, lest the government be a laughing stock.

Congress is a whole 'nother fish so to speak. It is true that Congress is where the laws are made, and frankly a good Congressman or woman is one who actually serves. But this discussion is about presidents. Also as Wanderer said, there is never going to be any president that ever makes everyone happy. Even two of the greatest American presidents (Washington and Lincoln) weren't perfect...and Lincoln was hated not only by a segment that seceded but by some within his own government. A president has to make hard decisions, and hopefully he (or she) will make the right ones.

Lastly, just to clear up something real quick, I believe you meant Andrew Jackson and not Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson. Andrew Jackson was a president that history judges for his horrible treatment of the Native Americans whereas Stonewall Jackson was a Lieutenant General of the Confederate States of America.

[Wanderer]

As an aside, probably the only good thing Andrew Jackson did was to oversee the abolition of the second national bank of the United States. It's extremely ironic that Federal Reserve notes have Jackson's portrait. It is also improper to have Thomas Jefferson on a Federal Reserve note as well, who stated that "banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies," and who fought Alexander Hamilton and his first national bank of the United States.

[Wanderer]

Well it's been well over a week, and the original poster hasn't chimed in on what she believes makes a "good president," like she said she would. It sure would be nice to have more opinions on this matter...