Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
We have a presidency that has acted like royalty or a dictatorship, is my point. The SCOTUS, by an alarmingly slim margin of 5 to 4, brought them somewhat to heel, but the damage has WAY been done.
|
My point is - so what if we have a President who acts like royalty or a dictator. Congress and the Judicial Branch have an obligation to chop it off at the knees. To the degree a President gets away with "unilateralism" is to the degree our other branches are not doing their jobs. This is not a case where other branches failed to be involved.
Quote:
|
How DO you feel about presidential signing statements that significantly amend or create exceptions to newly-signed law, ace? Or about policies about prisoner treatment (as just one example) that fly in the face of morality, convention and treaty, which got created in the Oval Office without any oversight from anybody? Doesn't that seem a bit unilateral? Do you have a problem with those things? I certainly do, but I'd love to hear your reasoning if you don't.
|
See above comment.
Quote:
The question of whether you think those things actually happened is a DIFFERENT question. I'm less interested in your answer to that other question, but I suppose if you have to give your answer to it, feel free. Please do NOT use that second question as a means to not have to answer the first one. Not that you'd ever be that intellectually dishonest--I'm just pointing out one mistake you might make if you weren't paying attention. 
|
o.k.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."
|