Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
cyn--that's in a sense the problem---the administration *can* get away with this because the possibility is itself allowed for in the context of the "checks and balances" of the system.
and like dc says, the advantage necessarily accrues to the "unitary" executive in this context because the executive can "act" where congress has to deliberate--and the judicary is only really involved at a further remove when cases work their way through the system.
|
rb....a large part of the failure may be attributed to a subset of the "checks and balances".....that has occurred within Exec Branch.
Bush's three Attorneys General have repeatedly acted to attempt to provide legal justification for his policies and actions rather than to perform their mandated role "to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law...." The AG is NOT the president's attorney...he/she is the "peoples" attorney.
One possible solution? Remove the AG from the Exec Branch and make it an independent position that transcends one president's term to ensure some level of non-partisanship.