O.T.: Bush orders Miers not to testify (venting)

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen says:

What I really like are all those Bush supporters here that are not anti-Bush.

Hhhmm...not sure what you mean there but I have to say that one of us is confused by the English language and/or your use of it.



TJR

 

[Gavin Allan]

The polarizing, hatred opinions that the media have gotten us to buy into surely won't help our country, especially in the times we have now. I have not heard any good strategy from either party regarding what to do moving forward from here in Iraq. Regardless of how we got here, we can't change the past, and we all need to focus on the future and what we should do.



As far as I am concerned, there are good and bad points of both parties. Best to focus on the candidate and not the party. However, sometimes the party controls the candidate, so you are gonna be screwed anyway. There are plenty of wrongs shared by both sides--neither one has a monopoly on stupidity or greed, so we might as well get over it and look forward.



I'd like to have a president who helps us come together and recognize how we all fit together and have a place in this world. The blame-games of the nightly news are getting quite old, and they really don't serve much of a purpose.



Of course, we also need a president and congress who push for decisions that are for the good of the whole, not for special interests and their own pockets.



In the meantime, probably the best thing we can do is to pray for our country. Pray for our leaders, our enemies, our service persons, and all public servants.

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

Thank GOD there is a limit on presidential terms.

Yep, no more Bill....

 

[Tom Schindler]

TJR,



I hit the "T" instead of the "W". So what I wanted to say was...



What I really like are all those Bush supporters here that are now anti-Bush.



And I will remind you, that you actually made a typo recently and nobody made a sarcastic comment about it. Glad to know you seen fit to make one to me.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, it's all good.



Sorry for being sarcastic.



Your post didn't seem like a typo since there were no words misspelled, or any letters clearly transcribed one for the other (note how far apart the T and the W keys are on the keyboard).



I read your post 5 times at least, and that sentence as many times, and in the context of the whole post, and STILL I couldn't have guessed it was typo-laden.



In my response with a typo Bill V clearly indicate that it doesn't make sense as written, and was able to recognize that I meant to type "can't" not "can", because as-is it would be logically incorrect (making an invalid assertion). I could see no such tell-tale signs of juxtaposition in your post.



Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[Johnny O]

It's a shame that congress wastes so much time on these witch hunts. Both parties do it and both need to stop. If that is all they have time to do, then we need to suspend them without pay until they show up to do something that truly benefits the American taxpayer. Not more federal programs and laws either; rather, the repeal and overhaul of the mess they've made over the past few decades. The IRS, social security, medicare, terrorism act, you name it. Everything they do just ends up increasing the size and cost of government.

Werd. I've been away on vacation, but I can't add anything to that.

I'd say term limits for Congress too but the problem is that then unelected bureaucrats would have even more power than they do now.



[Broken External Image]:

 

[Rodger Tellefson]

R Shek, Here is what I found about Federal Government "checks & balance", and has nothing to do with seperation of power.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By creating three branches of government, the delegates built a "check and balance" system into the Constitution. This system was built so that no one branch of our government could become too powerful.



Each branch is restrained by the other two in several ways. For example, the president may veto a law passed by Congress. Congress can override that veto with a vote of two-thirds of both houses. Another example is that the Supreme Court may check Congress by declaring a law unconstitutional. The power is balanced by the fact that members of the Supreme Court are appointed by the president. Those appointments have to be approved by Congress.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Checks and Balances

Checks and Balances, the constitutional controls whereby separate branches of government have limiting powers over each other so that no branch will become supreme. Perhaps the best-known system of checks and balances operates in the U.S. government under provisions of the federal Constitution.



Most national, state, and local governments have at least the mechanics of a system of checks and balances. Even dictatorial governments, otherwise scorning restraints on powers, provide internal checks to ensure proper performance by governmental agencies and to fix responsibility.



Theory of Checks and Balances. The concept of constitutional checks arose as an outgrowth of the classical theory of separation of powers, by which the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government were held properly to be vested in three different units. The purpose of this, and of the later development of checks and balances, was to ensure that governmental power would not be used in an abusive manner. However, in its original form the concept involved social classes rather than government departments.



Classical political philosophers from Aristotle onward favored a "mixed" government combining the elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. The English theorist James Harrington in his Oceana (1656) derived a theory akin to separation of powers from the old idea of mixed government. Later, John Locke, in his second treatise, Of Civil Government (1690), urged that the best way to avoid a perverted government was to provide constitutionally for separation of the legislative and executive powers. Montesquieu, in his Spirit of the Laws (1748), added the third power of the judiciary to this concept, and the modern expression of separation of powers came into being. The mechanics of checks and balances were refined by the founders of the American republic. (See Harrington, James; Locke, John; Montesquieu.)



Provisions in the U.S. Government. The framers of the U.S. Constitution were strongly influenced by the advantages of separation of powers and of checks and balances. These theories had been in practice in the governments of the American colonies, and they underlie the fundamental laws of the United States.



The Constitution distinctly separates the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. The federal system adds to the checking because power is divided constitutionally between the central government and the states. Further, the constitutional provisions for direct election of members of both houses of Congress and virtually direct election of the president puts two branches of the government under check of the electorate. However, procedural requirements in the Constitution ensure that even measures popular with the voters cannot be adopted without presumably adequate consideration.



The operation of checks and balances in the federal government

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

By creating three branches of government, the delegates built a "check and balance" system into the Constitution. This system was built so that no one branch of our government could become too powerful.

But you do have the Congress running rough-shod over the other two. Hense why they are going to start throwing people in prison (or at least threatening to) for giving aid and confort to the enemy (namely the President).



Checks and balances are wonderful things. When was the last time that Congress had their checkup?



Sorry, I still side with the President on this one. If someone on his staff gives him information of a sensitive nature, I would sure hope to h#!! that he goes to bat for them vs a congress more interested in politicking, bickering, holding "all nighters", investigations, etc. then any real work.



It's nice to know they would rather spend all the time renaming post offices then get real work done, like fixing the AMT, making the tax cut permanent, fixing the tax code in general, fixing the borders correctly, supporting our troops unconditionally (and without earmarks), funding the commitments made to our veterens, etc.



Instead of protecting our rights guarenteed by the constitution, they are trying to dismantle certain rights, 2nd amendment for instance.



Congress is 535 people. They have done nothing of any value since Queen Pelosi and Dirty Harry have taken over. Their biggest "hype" was a bill to increase the minimum wage (and don't get me started on that one....) which still has not gone into effect.



Congradulations Congress, your ratings are below that of the President and you want to investigate something that was legal and something the Mr. Clinton did on a much broader scale.



WAY TO GO! <f-tards>

 

[Gavin Allan]

Oh, now that one left a mark, R. Shek!

 

[Johnny O]

Checks and balances are wonderful things. When was the last time that Congress had their checkup?

Whenever the President vetoes a bill, which I don't think Bush has done since he's been in office. :angry:

I think he should be impeached too, but not for the same reason the Democrats do.

 

[Tom Schindler]

R Shek would side with the president if he commanded all citizens to jump off a bridge. :lol:





Tom

 

[TomT]

Some times the truth hurts Caymen.

 

[Eric Pennal]

Johnny,



Bush never vetoed a bill until the Democrats took control last January. This alone demonstrates the lack of "Checks and Balances" that occurred during the first 6 years of this administration.



R Shek's hypocrisy would be revealed if he was honest enough to admit he wouldn't have these same "enlightened" opinions if Clinton were president.

 

[Rodger Tellefson]

Eric, Right on.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bush is a wet knob, Clinton was a slick-willie horndog. Neither could be trusted; both have done little to actually move our country forward in any real way.



Still waiting for a worthy candidate to run...it's only been a couple of decades since that happened.



TJR

 

[TomT]

I'm still waiting for a candidate to vote for instead of candidates that I only seem to vote against. Can't remember the last time I did that.

 

[Gavin Allan]

Ronald Reagan.



-nuff said.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin...that's why I said "it's only been a couple of decades".



Reagan was the man.



TJR

 

[Nelson Atwell]

The First Bush was good too. He just suffered from a bad economic turn and lost re-election. A lot of folks wanted him to roll into Baghdad and remove Saddam, but he didn't. Some voted against him for that as well. However, in hindsight, it looks like a smart move to leave Saddam in place.



As I get older, and I hope wiser, I am beginning to think there are some countries like Iraq and Iran that really need a strong dictator to keep the population from killing each other. Some societies just have not evolved enough to live within a democracy.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Nelson, you said some smart stuff there. In retrospect Bush Sr. was smart in not going in. If he had, we probably still would be fighting that war...just like we will be fighting the current war for a decade or so more.



TJR