Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-02-07 03:04 PM
Original message |
Poll question: Here's a simple poll: Does the Executive branch have too much power? |
jaysunb
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-02-07 03:07 PM
Response to Original message |
1. under normal cicumstances...no |
|
these days are anything but normal :evilfrown:
|
kdmorris
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-02-07 03:07 PM
Response to Original message |
|
OMG Hell YES?
Yes and No just don't seem to be enough options.
|
Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-02-07 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
I don't see what's complicated about it, its a yes/no question to begin with, but more importantly, I didn't put in any qualifiers, on purpose, because I do NOT want this to be about Bush alone. This is beyond Bush, and goes to the heart of our system of Checks and Balances, and whether that system has been working for the past 50 years or so.
|
kdmorris
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-02-07 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
Edited on Sun Sep-02-07 03:33 PM by kdmorris
I was just teasing.
Our system of checks and balances used to work, but it doesn't seem to anymore. The legislative branch has abdicated much of it's authority to the executive branch and the judicial branch is in the pocket of the executive branch (right now. It may be different when and if we ever have a Democrat in the White House. At that point, there may be more checks and balances in place. I know you didn't want this to be about Democrat or Republican, but the simple point is that, during the Clinton Admin, the congress kept tight control and did a lot of checking and balancing, but refused to when a Republican got into office)
I had already answered "Yes".
|
jaxx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-02-07 03:11 PM
Response to Original message |
|
The powers were spelled out in the Constitution. Along the way they have been bastardized to fit a moment in time. It's to our advantage to get them back where they belong.....and keep them there.
|
SaveElmer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-02-07 03:13 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Too much when an idiot is in charge...but normally...no...nt |
aquart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-02-07 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
9. You don't get it. There is no "normal" anymore. |
|
The presidency will NOT revert because Bush is gone. Every power he has usurped is now precedent UNLESS we impeach his ass.
|
Bitwit1234
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-02-07 03:18 PM
Response to Original message |
6. The republicans don't think so because |
|
there is a republican president. IF we get a democratic president they are going to call for the president's authority to be curtailed.
|
Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-02-07 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. This is something I was hoping to avoid, but at least two posters apparently have the same... |
|
opinion, just switch the words "democratic" and "republican".
This is why I put in no qualifiers, I was implying "Regardless of WHO is in Office", but that went right over some people's heads.
|
napi21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-02-07 03:40 PM
Response to Original message |
10. YES! And it doesn't matter WHO or what Party is in power! |
|
Power tends to be abused by anyone who gets too much of it, even when that same person would never have considered it in the past.
|
regnaD kciN
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-02-07 04:51 PM
Response to Original message |
11. As the theory of the executive stands right now...absolutely! |
|
By which I mean: the Bush administration has enunciated a policy wherein the executive branch has near-absolute power -- to suspend civil liberties, to imprison citizens for life without charges, to overrule any law via "signing statements," etc., etc.
While one might say "these are just abuses of the Bush administration," the fact remains that they are the current understanding of the powers of the Presidency. Unless and until they are overruled by the courts (and that means a definitive ruling by the SCOTUS), they remain "on the table," able to be used by any President, of any party. Personally, I'm not enthusiastic about "unitary executive" powers being wielded by a less-abusive leader such as Hillary, or Obama, or Edwards, or even Gore, any more than I am about the current (mal)administration claiming them.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 03:15 PM
Response to Original message |