I'm curious about something. I'm not picking on you, but, in your post, you used a phrase that I've been curious about, so I'll ask you.
People have been talking about the President having a "mandate from the people" as though the President derives his power from his margin of victory. They were saying the same thing about Clinton in '92 and '96 (he didn't have a "mandate from the people" because he didn't win a majority of the popular vote). The way I understand it, once a person is President, he is President. The President doesn't get stripped of certain powers depending on his margin of victory. The Constitution doesn't say "You can only sign three executive orders per quarter, because you only got 49% of the popular vote."
It seems to me that the President's mandate (once he is elected), comes mostly from his support from Congress. If the President and a significant majority of the Congress agree fundamentally, then the President has more power (is that a "mandate?")
If the President and Congress are diametrically opposed on most issues, then the President will be less powerful, because he will meet with greater resistance.
I don't get this "mandate from the people" thing. I'm not trying to sound like a totalitarian or anything, but how does the vote count affect a President's ability to wield power?
Flapjack has said that if Bush is sworn in as President, that he (flapjack) will have no President. I guess that indicates a lack of "mandate" from flapjack. But what exactly does it mean? If flapjack doesn't pay his taxes and he is caught, he will be prosecuted; lack of mandate notwithstanding. |
