scout....I guess you really arent interested in reading the six links (hardly a "thousand") to Democratic bills I posted that attempt to restore some rights guaranteed in the Constitution, return more openness and transparency to the federal government and hold our elected representatives more accountable for their actions. Its easier to bitch that they are all the same rather than acknowledge that the Democrats have done anything positive.
It takes more than one year to undue seven years of Bush/Republican excesses in the name of national security, particularly with a razor thin majority. Thats not to say the Democrats do not share some blame and responsibility for not doing more.
But good luck in finding a candidate who supports locking the government down for a couple years, restoring Christian values (so much for imposing your values on other citizens), proposing an economic package that includes good paying jobs or a program to reduce out dependency on foreign oil (oh wait...you dont want big government involved in your life, so good luck with the "free market" accomplishing these things anytime soon). Smaller government....which "government gimme" are you willing to give up?
I honestly dont know what you want...perhaps Ron Paul? But then that would not support your claims about what "most Americans want"..since he is attracting about 5% of the voting public.
***
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Generally, I have a bias to the Executive Branch, the place where 'the buck stops'.
|
ace....correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds to me like you support the Gonzales interpretation of the Constitution....that Article 2 of the Constitution gives the President the sole Constitutional authority to determine the power of the Executive Branch under that same Article 2.
Sorry, but the Constitution does not have a bias to the Executive Branch. "The buck stops at the Executive Branch" is not a Constitutional provision or mandate, but simply a folksy saying by a former president to accept responsibility for actions of his administration, not to unilaterally determine the extent of Executive power....unlike "I am the Decider". Hardly what the framers envisioned in a system of checks and balances.
I will look forward to your support of Hillary if/when her EOP staff destroy millions of WH e-mails (including some that might be potentially incriminating of a criminal action), withholds documents and prohibits EOP staff from testifying under oath at Congressional oversight investigations on dubious claims of executive privilege, orders the Secret Service to classify WH visitor logs to keep the public from knowing when criminals (ie Jack Abaramoff) visit, issues more signing statements than the last 10 presidents combined in order to alter the intent of laws enacted by Congress, interprets other US laws and treaty obligations rather than leaving it to the Judiciary.......
I will be the one complaining about an Executive Branch that has overstepped its Constitutional authority.