US Law & Presidency

by Amazing 26 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Amazing

  Julie: You yourself initiated allegations about me that are neither true nor germane to my points, which you continue to deliberately ignore. So I am not the one who keeps going back to it as you assert above. It is you that keeps harping on it and I have employed enough words and expressed enough thoughts to present my points in defense.

  You seem intelligent and sharp, enough so, that I felt compelled to compliment you in a post to Duns. As you yourself state, however, you were "having fun at my expense." That is your choice to waste such intelligence having such fun at other people's expense. Your latest post continues in your style of ignoring the context and focus of my point, while you continue to be surley and sarcastic. Given your intelligence, for example, I am surprised you seem to avoid even the simplest distinctions between 'most' (which normally implies majority to the reader) and 'Plurality' which clearly denotes with greater accuracy the type of 'most' employed. Unless and until you change your style, I see no need to continue debating on this level. It is time consuming and pointless. - Amazing
• 

  bigboi

  Hey Amazing:

  You give a great deal of preference to Congress in your essay about the Presendency. You even stated that on that you would favor a Parlimentary system where the party in power would control who was gonna be President.

  I disagree with you. The Presidency was not intended to be weak. The government was built upon a system of checks and balances. I thought that meant the no branch of the Federal Government would become too powerful and dominate the other. All Branches of government should remain limited in thier power to govern us. True, in thses times there is more of a focus on Congress because of the economic troubles and the many legislative changes that aretaking place today. However, that does not mean that ths country does not need a President on the watch who will serve as a watchdog for the ppl and ensure that congress keeps the needs of it's ordinary citizens in view too. Congress has attempted many times to control the President. I think of Andrew Johnson, and Bill Clinton. the day it succeeds in Controlling the only public official who is elected by every U.S. citizen will be a sad one indeed.

  ONE....

  bigboi
• 

  Amazing

  Hi Bigboi: While the Three Branches are divided with checks and balances, they are not equal in power or necessarily importance.

  The weakest Branch is the Judiciary. It cannot legislate (although in the last 40 years Judicial Activism has been problematic in violating this intent.) The Judicial branch, Supreme Court can only interpret a Bill or hear a case challenging a law with the Constitution. Then, they can decide whether Congress went beyond the Constitution. This also only sets case law, and until Congress changes a law as a result, the law may still be enforced, requiring new challenges. In major judgments, a law will become null and void and unenforcible. But that is all the Supremes do.

  The Executive is stronger than the Judicial, but is still weak by comnparison to Congress. The President is subject to Congress, and only administratively carries out the will of Congress. But, the President has enough levergae aka power to slow Congress and manipulate them ... but his is still the weaker of the two.

  Congress having the greatest power could easily overwhelm the Executive and Judicial Branches. So, the framers of the Constitution wisely split Congress into two Houses, each having similar and also unique powers, rules, and motives. So, COngress, while being more powerful, is tempered by its own in-House checks and balances.

  I disagree with you regarding the impeachment and removal powers of that Congress has over the President. Only twice in history has this issue come up to this point. Clinton was guilty of violating national security because Monica took notes of what he talked about on the phone, notes that were of classified nature, such as troop deployment in Bosnia. When Congress first received the Starr Report, their Democrat Counsel added charges and if they had remained, Clinton would have been removed for treason. But, Congress wanted to keep Clinton in as a lame-duck so that they had a better chance against Gore. That is one reason why they watered down the charges against Clinton.

  Clinton was not elected by the majority of the American people. He only received 49% of the vote, with about 55% voter turnout. So, Clinton was in effect elected by about 25%-30% of the people. The Presdiency was never intended to be about the WIill of the People. The House of Representaives was the only Branch intended to be about the Will of the People. This is exactly what is germane to my original post.

  Finally, let's assume that we change to a 'National Popular' vote for the President, such that his election is about the Will of the People. Then what? Let's say the President commits a crime. Congress will still need to remove the man from office. - Amazing
• 

  bigboi

  Amazing:

  Again, I must disagree with you. The House of Representatives and the Senate were designed to give the individual states that vary in size a population an egual share in government. The House of Reps can't be the will the ppl because it doesn't represent all the ppl just the state the ppl live, whichever that one is. It was a result of the "Great Compromise" http://www.senate.gov/learning/min_1bb.html of the constitutional convention. What sense does it make to have a system of Checks and Balances if one part of the government has the majority of power? That whole concept only makes sense if all branches are presumed to be equal in power and status. Thus the need to put in Checks and Balancesto ensure that no one branch becomes the arbiter of government. Doesn't the very word balance denote equality?

  All three branches of government are able to wield great influence in American society. The Supreme Court affected Federal Poilcy in the last election, in Roe vs. Wade, in Brown vs the Board of Education etc..

  Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan both set in motion Legislative reforms the changed social policy in this country. Let's not even talk about FDR and the New Deal. Of course, they needed to get the votes in the Legislative branch to get their proposal s through. That lends support to the fact that the Branches ar equal. The Legislature must make sure their policy is in line with Constitutional interpretation or it can be shot down by the Judicial. They must also avoid the veto of the President, cause it's hard to get those 2/3rds majority to overturn one. So each branch is constantly working together as equals to govern according to the framework of the Conatitution.

  ONE....

  bigboi
• 

  Julie

  Hi Amazing,

  I am very sorry you feel I have been sarcastic and insincere throughout this entire discussion. In my last post to you the only time I was intentionally sarcastic was on the corporate welfare matter. The rest was sincere. The only time I had fun at your expense was the post where I was claiming severe stupidity.

  Please know that I mean this post and all it's content in complete sincerity. One point I would like to make with you is you imply, pretty regularly, quite the opposite of your compliments. Like I said in my last post, maybe it is unintentional I don't know. When you make comments like "...in the Real World" it makes a strong implication that the person you are talking about is coming from a different world.

  I tried to address all your points in my last post, I am sincerely sorry you feel I was dodging issues and just being nonsensical.

  How about a deal? I promise not to be so quick to assume dishonesty or misrepresentation of facts and you could be not so quick to assume that I am utterly clueless/uninformed.

  Julie, who doesn't regret what she said, only how some of it was said
• 

  Amazing

  Hi Julie: Okay. You have a deal. I did not mean to imply that you or anyone else was clueless, but I agree that my statements were careless, though unintentional. I will go back and review your comments and provide a response. Thanks for getting back to me on this, and your kindly way.

  Bigboi: I will get back to your points too. I don't totally disagree with you, but maybe we can hammer this out some more.

  Amazing
• 

  bigboi

  Amazing:

  I'm looking forward to your response. I think you are partly right. Our government is a dynamic one. It can change with the times and the circumstances. Take as an example the years we have been a world power. Most of those yrs were defined by our Presidents and their politics. That makes since because for most of that time we were under the threat of nuclear war. he is the commander-in-chief of the Government had expanded to either control or have much more say in how things were done in every area of public life. Therefore strong executive power was needed and still is imo.

  Today a change is happening. We need different legislation, less government intervention in some areas, not all imo. Therefore the Congress is starting to take enter stage and no doubt(unless there is a mjor war) will be the most important part of the federal government. THere's this saying about whoever holds the purse holds something. I forget it. The saying basically means that whoever holds the money controls the house. Congress has the power to determine how federal money is ultimately spent. So it's going to be the force until a new circumstance arises.

  ONE....

  bigboi