View Single Post
Old 05-30-2008, 01:26 PM   #112 (permalink)
Cynthetiq
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Checks and balances is a system built into our governmental system meant to ensure that no one branch has too much power. For example, the Legislative can investigate the Executive and the Executive can veto the Legislative. In this way different branches can police one another.

The intent, imho, is the most important part of checks and balances. No one branch can be allowed to be too powerful.
If this was a test for 10 points, you'd probably only score 3-4 points. You didn't state anything about the seperation of powers, and your example is a simple example, but no example of what the seperation of powers is or means. You've stated the labels but not what the functions of each are. If you did, you clearly see how there is no ability for ANY branch to be a runaway. Power is limited because the powers are seperated from the very beginning.

In other words, your explaination 3-4pts and all, is also intellectually dishonest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Maybe you're forgetting that the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election. That was a neo-conservative move. It was not a traditional conservative move and it was not a liberal move. Scalia has also clearly said that the torture of prisoners does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment." That's neo-conservative.
I didn't know what neo-conservative really meant, I had some clear ideas, but once you mentioned the word, I made sure to double check the meaning. There is not a single article ever written that states the 2000 election decision by the SCOTUS was a neo-conservative move, tactic, decision, anything. In other words, 2000 election SCOTUS neoconservative never were put together in any articles. If what you stated was in fact even a host-ism, there would be at least one post somewhere. But other people have posted what neo-conservative means, and I agree that it has more to do with foreign policy than domestic policy.

Since you are the one bandying about lables and jargon, how is neoconservatism defined and what does it mean to you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I know everyone is high on righteous indignation, but this thread is turning into "different ways to call Willravel stupid". The last government-specific class I took was in high school, what with having a degree in psych and all. Yes, I plan on getting into a decent school and getting my BA in poli-sci, but I don't have it right now. So maybe, just maybe, people can stop discussing how poorly I've done in classes I never took. I've never taken Constitutional Law. My 7th grade class barely covered history, let along government.
Will, no one is trying to be rigeously indignant. In fact, I don't know where you are getting that his is turning into a "different ways to call Willravel stupid" since no one has to call you that, you've clearly shown your ignorance on the topic and subject of US Constitution and US Government all by yourself. No one has to say a word to that.

But what I will state here is simple:

More intellectual dishonesty.

So you didn't remember it from your history or schooling, but you've clearly been able to read the post of Articles I-III that I posted, you could have easily read the socialstudieshelp.com or even listened to the fabulous
, all of which would have given more complete and intuitive answers that you did in explaining how you understand it.

I've seen you rip up the threads here with citations and quotations of very complex issues, yet the most basic foundation of the United States government you're going to blame your lack of grade school, high school, or college level learning. Are you serious?????

That smacks of even more intellectual dishonesty.

The answers were spoon fed to you, and still exist now, but still you insist your position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Political parties are a method of overriding checks and balances.
You cannot overide the checks and balances, you cannot consolidate the seperation of powers, if you could then the system itself would be broken. The only way that I can see if anything like that could ever happen is if the US Constitution is suspended or revoked. Even then the way I understand it, the very fact that the Constitution has enumerated States versus Federal rights, the US Constitution would still stand in almost every other state. The framers were very mindful to make sure that the power was not centralized so that anyone would have to live under tyranny.

Again, the very assertion means you don't understand what the words of Articles I, II, III say or mean.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360