The Framers of the U.S. Constitution would have great trouble recognizing today's presidency. The sentiment of the Philadelphia Convention was that the Articles of Confederation were flawed because they did not provide for an executive, but few delegates would have supported the far-reaching powers wielded by modern presidents. After what they had suffered under the British monarch, many delegates had serious reservations about awarding too much authority to the executive branch. Those who supported the New Jersey Plan envisioned a plural executive in which two or more individuals would share the chief executive position as insurance against excessive power accruing to a single person. The framers would be amazed at the vast military resources over which the president serves as commander in chief, to say nothing of the hundreds of departments, agencies, and bureaus that constitute the executive branch.

Do you agree or disagree with the above sentiment addressed by the framers, that the modern American presidency is too powerful. Are modern presidents too powerful? Do they wield too much unilateral power? Or do you think they are sufficiently restrained by the checks and balances system and the countervailing power of Congress and the Supreme Court