Are you for or against implementing more timely and effective checks and balances on the president?

Question

The Supreme Court's landmark decision repudiating President Bush's plans for Guantanamo prisoners exemplifies effective checks and balances. However, to prevent future erroneous interpretations of the law, and erroneous executive orders SOONER, checking and balancing the president's actions needs to be conducted immediately after the president declares that knowledge by the Supreme Court and Congress of a particular negotiation's details will not hinder it. Perhaps, Congress could also elect three additional Supreme Court justices exclusively to oversee the president.
And when everything the president says officially is also audiorecorded by three separate machines to prevent tampering, the Supreme Court's twelve justices and the 535 members of Congress will be able to access to the scientific, word-for-word truth concerning any of the president's actions.

C.M. Fabara
Brooklyn College
c.fabara@yaho

Answer 1

You will not have checks and balances till the politicians action are transparent. As long as they can lump anything into a bill, the good as well as the garbage will become law. Everything should be required to stand on its own merit. make the politicians accountable. Let them run on their record.

Answer 2

I am for more timely responses. It would be great if we had a congress that valued the Constitution more so than that of party. If we did we wouldn't have the mess we have today. Maybe the supreme court will see the need to call for a grand jury for possible indictment of this administration of the crimes they have committed against the American public. May be they will include a few congress members who like to provide a rubber stamp vs checks and balances. I am proud of the court for their decision, they basically told Bush and Cheney no to their dictatorship, not on their watch.

Answer 3

I really don't understand this at all. As an Australian, it makes total sense to check if people are insane or have criminal records before letting them buy legal weapons, and the only argument I hear against it is that it "is just the beginning, later they will do more than try and stop crazies and criminals from buying guns". So basically they use a very stupid prediction as to what might happen in the future to justify letting criminals get their hands on legal weapons. Also to the person claiming to have a clearance, surely they told you not to talk about that when you were getting it? People who claim they have top secret clearance never do, because if they did they wouldn't boast about it on the internet, as they would have some basic understanding of the nature of information security.

Answer 4

Unfortunately courts move slowly, the legislature is supposed to be a faster check--you know through the use of budget, approval of appointees and being the only one's who can declare war?

But as you know when one party holds all the marbles (both branches of the legislature, the supreme court and the white house) there are no effective checks and that's what we have going on here right now...divided government was the creation of the founders because they knew that if one person or group held all the marbles you get tyrrany.

....that's what we got--people held in prison without getting their basic rights as spelled out in the Bill of Rights, companies feeding like greedy pigs at the public trough and a war that's being fought without a declaration of war by Congress. We have a minimum wage that doesn't ever get raised while the cost of living goes up regularly and a lot of that driven by the oil that makes our wonderful republicans in the white house richer by the day.

Meanwhile our ineffective legislature wastes its time trying to roll back the last 25 years of litigation over abortion and pass flag burning amendments to cut down your right of free speech, while forgetting to worry about its basic function in controlling the national debt or solving the problems of social security and medicare.

Of course while this is all going on more and more americans are finding themselves with job loss, cuts in pay, no health insurance and very uncertain pensions because they are underfunded or being erased in corporate bankruptcies....

The fault lies with the Congress for not protecting its rights, but since it is in the control of the same group that holds the high court and the white house, what do you expect?

Answer 5

We have a system of checks and balances already in place. The problem is the fact that both branches of Congress are run by one party. And GWB doesn't care if he breaks the law. He does need to be impeached. He has broken too many easy laws. All he had to do was go to his friends in Congress with some of them and to a Federal judge with the wiretapping, to get the ok. He chose not to do that so he is a criminal. History will not be kind to GWB.

Answer 6

I think it is the judges in the courts that need to be checked and balanced. They decide whatever they want to regardless of our law. I'm not just talking about the supreme court here, but all courts.

If USA law and international law are in disagreement on a subject, the judges are responsible for basing their decisions on USA law. That is the law of this land.

Answer 7

More than two centuries of relentless power lust masquerading as "get'er done" practicality has largely eroded the Constitution's power to stop much of anything. Supreme Court Justices are hand picked by ..wait for it ..the President. Besides, at $194,200 a year for life? Try selling that to Mr. and Mrs. John Q taxpayer.

Answer 8

The odd thing with you linear thinking politicos both on the left and the right is: you always want less power concentrated in the executive branch when your party is not in power and vice versa... I would bet a ham sandwich and a month's pay that C.M Fabara is a liberal.

Answer 9

In ancient Rome a citizen had certain rights and responsibilities not shared by those who were not citizens. I think that should be the same in America today. Citizens have rights and protection under the laws of our land. Those who are not citizens should not be allowed the same rights and yaddah. No vote, no access to services, no legal protection, etc.

Answer 10

I do believe on 'checks and balances' but I highly suggests that 'prevention is better that cure' and 'if it is not broken, don't fix it.'

However, 'rights and nationalism' should put in place for the security of every individual flagship, and not against to each other.