US presidental paramount

The phantom again raises it head in the land of liberty. What power can the US president wield through only the office?

This country was founded on liberty from autocrats. Not just from overseas but woven into the intrinsic policy of the national governance of the US. It was also written in that there be checks and balances in governance.

It is of course a lot of convenience if a sitting leader can self-initiate policy just from the executive office. It saves a lot of time going through channels and bureaucracy. That is a joy and convenience usually found of autocrats, no matter what form of government may be at hand.

In early US democracy and government there were debates on the extent of the power of the president. They knew they did not want an untouchable monarchy, from which they just won freedom. But they did want a strong, leading position in policy and representation of the nation. Finding the way was tricky and not readily resolved as different delegates had different ideas and emphasis. Some offered that the president would be like the best among equals and gave that position expanse of powers and immunity. This was strongly pressed in the debates. However, eventually the model the US has for the role of the president was adopted by the delegates and kept the executive office branch as more of an equal representation among the three governing branches. The president does have capacity to develop their own cabinet and administration and is the chief officer of some in some capacities but not in others as outlined in the US Constitution, the law of the land.

When the auto tycoon, Henry Ford was asked about his knowledge of early history of the US and some of its leaders and policies, he admitted he did not have a ghost of an idea about that.

 Modernly, this issue was brought up by an émigré, that entry is to follow.

It was starkly noted the wielding that was done by president Franklin Delano Roosevelt, changing the Supreme Court justices seats number 7 to 9, etc.

Other presidents sniffed at the ease they would have if they would be allocated more power in certain areas while they were in office, e.g. line veto, etc. It again raises the issue under the Trump administration on the extent the president can exercise the executive influence in certain areas. So after all this time, how is it that this desirous ghost still haunts US democracy that is vowed not to succumb to autocratic ways?

Recently,this issue was addressed by a German émigré, escaping the Third Reich, born during the Austro-Hungarian reign. He was exceptionally brilliant with mathematics in the 1930's. Very excessive in his studies. He was before a judge to be sworn in for US citizenship. He was sponsored by Albert Einstein.

The judge congratulated Kurt Godel on his new citizenship and commented that he would not in this country have to worry about any autocrats. Godel immediately commented that he had very, very carefully studied the Constitution and had found there are ways even a US president, with the present documents, could arrest sole power. Einstein quickly hushed Godel and hurried him out of the judge's office, later to be at Princeton University. 

One conjecture: It is believed that if Article V is amended so the one vote per Senator is changed (and there have been attempts in the past) so only three quarters of the Senate is needed to pass an amendment, it cannot be stopped by the Supreme Court which only may hear cases on already existing law, not necessarily amendments which are not yet law. In other words, Article V is not protected to be safeguarded and sustained. There could pass an amendment (by a three quarters Senate instead of 100%) to remove Article V, and no more amendments could thereafter be proposed. The Supreme Court can only interpret what is written, it cannot act on what is not there. So the Court would not beable to act on the removal of Article V if it is no longer present in the body.