If those Senators could stop taking the free trips and get their act together perhaps the terrorist might cut down on the attacks. Congressmen also need to do more at home than take trips at the taxpayers expense. We have a state department for foreign affairs. Taking pictures with hostile leaders does not shown support for our troops.
2006-12-24 14:02:19 · 17 answers · asked by mr conservative 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
If you are talking about foreign policy, it is not just the job of the President of the United States to set such policy. The Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, being the President, can initiate policy, legislation, acts, etc.; but, the Legislative Branch, senators, representatives (members of Congress) may or may not validate such. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress may also initiate policy, legislation, acts, etc., which may, in turn, be validated or not by the President.
Working in complete tandem, the Executive and Legislative branches of government can reach a satisfactory conclusion to most issues that would appease the larger portion of the population.
Historically, the U.S. has seldom had an Executive and Legislative group that made decisions everyone was "happy" with.
Executive vs Legislative responsibility, and the power each wields, is complex within the written framework of our Constitution. Don't forget the Judicial Branch. Nine Supreme Court Justices interpret the laws that have passed, are passed, and will be passed.
As a voting citizen of the United States, take time to write your elected officials outlining your concerns
2006-12-24 15:07:24 · answer #1 · answered by Baby Poots 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I will be one of the first in line, I will march in the streets, and travel as far as I have to go get such a law enacted. People get re-elected to Congress time after time and I think they lose sight of exactly why they are there. They become too complacent and enjoy the seat of power that they tend to "sell" to the lobbyist. In my Congressional district the same man has been in the House for over thirty years. He usually runs unopposed. With term limits (and I would support no more than twelve years in the both the Senate and the House) his seat would have to be contested. We could even get someone in Congress with new ideas and a desire to make changes. This guy we have now, I know how he's going to vote before he does.
2016-05-23 04:55:12 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Erm - considering that the Bush administration has been co-opting the powers of Congress and the Supreme court for the last six years... I'm more concerned that the Bush administration has gone further than even Lincoln (our greatest president even though I disagree with him).... and Congress passed laws restricting presidential powers after Lincoln and the Civil War.
Kind of ironic that the Bush administration has chosen to violate both the laws restricting presidential powers after the civil war, but also has exceeded his powers granted under the Constitution.
And there is so much more - the Republican senators wasting billions on their personal pleasures...
Ugh.
-dh
2006-12-24 14:11:25 · answer #3 · answered by delicateharmony 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
In recent years the roles of the different branches of government have become very blurred. Of course you have the executie action power of the president, who acts as Commander-in-Chief and becomes engaged in "regional conflicts" without the approval to go to war by Congress (LBJ started this). Then there is the judiciary that seems to border on a legislature sometimes, such as allowing governments to claim emminent domain in the theft of private property. The Congress, for its part, likes to posture and pose like an aristocracy that deserves equal honor to the President and, although their job is immensely important, it isn't the same thing. However, with travel and the media becoming cheaper, faster, and more available, Congressmen are now conducting their own international visitations instead of trying to promote the interests of their constituency.
2006-12-24 14:09:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Yeah-- their job is to be a rubberstamp for Bush! How dare they try to fill a void left by his policy of not talking to bad countries. Why, if previous Presidents took that approach vis-a-vis the old Soviet Union, the Cold War would have ...
... turned HOT!
2006-12-24 15:14:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The senators and congressmen don't even do their own jobs. They don't declare war, and they don't stop the president from waging one. What good are they?
2006-12-24 15:03:23 · answer #6 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The are trying to do the President's job because he does a piss poor job of doing it himself so they have to try to do his job as well as their own Why they have not impeached the S.O.B. is a mystery. Must only be because the Republicans are still in control of Congress 'til Jan.4
2006-12-24 14:18:09 · answer #7 · answered by bisquedog 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the President stalls instead of making a decision, someone needs to do something. However, I agree the trips are a waste of money unless they have some guarantee that the President will listen to their suggestions.
2006-12-24 14:07:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think waiting 6 years for Bush to do his own job is long enough; don't you?
2006-12-24 14:09:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
What makes you think the president does HIS job ?
2006-12-24 14:15:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋