2006-12-05 07:35:26 · 7 answers · asked by IRunWithScissors 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
state your answer and explain why or why not
2006-12-05 07:38:22 · update #1
He doesnt now.
2006-12-05 07:37:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
No, but I am okay with increasing his powers with oversight.
Here's the big caveat, we need to formally declare war for the President to get these powers and that means that Congress needs to declare war.
"Not declaring war provides a way to circumvent constitutional safeguards against the executive declaring war, and also, in some cases, to avoid feeling bound by the established laws of war. Not using the word "war" is also seen as being more public relations-friendly. For these reasons, they have generally ceased to issue declarations of war, instead describing their actions by euphemisms such as "police action" or "authorized use of force.""
-wikipedia.org
If we believe it's a war, let's say so and get the country behind it fully. The first public relations battle to be fought should be in calling a spade a spade. After that, it's much easier to do the right thing.
2006-12-05 07:50:42 · answer #2 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Think of what you just said- "un-checked" authority. That is a scary thing. I can see where it would help, in situations where time is crucial- but whose motives are that trustworthy in our government today? Our government was set up to have checks and balances because the forefathers were wise enough to foresee, or remember what happens in a monarchy or dictatorship type of government.
2006-12-05 08:36:24 · answer #3 · answered by catarina 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No....uncheked authority would allow bush to stay in power until the conflict in Iraq is over as it is if we get "invaded" he will stay in power as per our Constitution.......can any one say bay of pigs on Miami ...sorry i like conspiracy......but no he shouldn't we have checks and balances for a reason
2006-12-05 07:39:41 · answer #4 · answered by Lab Runner 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.(Quote from British historian Lord Acton).
If anyone has absolute power, they WILL misuse it at some time. That's why our founders put together three branches of government to provide checks and balances. Transfer too much power to one part of government, and you end up with a dictatorship.
2006-12-05 08:48:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, because he is one man making a decision that will affect millions of people. and the pressure in the time of conflict may lead him to make the wrong decision as well.
2006-12-05 07:43:07 · answer #6 · answered by morequestions 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no, no one should have unchecked authority then they could just do whatever they wanted regardless of the conseuquences to there nation.
2006-12-05 07:42:49 · answer #7 · answered by godsnoriel 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋