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.