This income disparity is certainly not a major issue; if the poor are doing better, and it seems quite clear that they have over the course of my administration, why should you ruffle your feathers over the fact that the wealthiest have managed to make more money? Is not a great deal of that going in investments, in loans, into the market and further promoting growth? If the rise in economic output is any standard, then it appears it is true; generally, those who have gotten wealthier have invested more in our economy, bringing jobs to the poor, helping raise wages, promoting international competition, and generally improving our economic well being. The middle class has seen massive growth and prosperity, and, due to the expansion of jobs, the greater availability of goods, and the lower taxes now on them, the poor are living better now than at any time previous, even under Hayden, Harrison, and certainly Mr. Sherman's opponent, Terrance.
The Founder's were not 'Gods among Men' no, but looking at their words of warning, their divining of the future is quite accurate. I agree that we need to change our voting system; I voted for your father's reforms (well most of them), and the Constitution is not perfect; but would you really want the President to wield as much power as Harrison or any other president wanted? What if I had wielded great power? Certainly, there are some things we agree on, but I could very easily put into place a form of government you find abhorrent. What if the SNP had won the presidency, and the Constitution had been more lenient to the expansion of Federal power? Slavery could very well be alive today! I argue that Constitutionalism is logical, reasonable, and above all, what has made this nation great, and her people free.
While I am certain you believe these powers would only go to the Congress, it is likely not the case. Congress has the power to declare war, but have surrendered that authority to the President countless times; I don't even remember voting to go to war with Germany! The Presidency, since the time of Cameron, and especially since Harrison, as accumulated more and more power, at the expense of the States, the Courts, and the Congress.
You fear faceless corporations? Corporations that cater to the People? How can a business survive when it oppresses People? They don't have to work there, and they don't have to buy goods there. The same cannot be said for a State. Through laws and the military, leaving a country would be impossible, the arms of the people (the only weapon against tyrants) seized, and a tyranny can be established; we have seen that, but I ahve never seen a corporation, without governmental approval, take control over a populace and maintain that control for any length of time.