Have we seen enough such characteristics so far?
2007-01-13 13:21:43 · 17 answers · asked by Tia T 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. It is apparent (at least to me) that congress failed to do their job of oversight and has given this president free reign. Congress has failed miserbly to uphold and protect the constitution. Now more people understand why there is a three branch system of government.
2007-01-13 13:24:39 · answer #1 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Yes, absolutely. The decisions that the leader makes now may not reflect the ones made when they were elected. I say that if the it can be proven that a majority of people want an official out, they should be booted out by purpose of public non-confidence. Democracy comes from the Greek words "demos kratia" meaning "the people rule". "The people" are not ruling, only some people are, because the majority of opinions do not reflect the opinions of those in leadership. Yes, there must be balance between enough time for accomplishment and rights to vote, but I strongly believe that there is an unbalance of this and the current system is not working. There needs to be some major reforms. If the United States is not an autocracy, then the President should have to take the same responsibilities for not doing his job as everyone else and should be able to be fired. The constitution is flawed and just creates ignorant and close-minded views. Yes, of course it does good, but anyone who tries to challenge it looks like an anti-American and that's what causes so many problems. The world changes and so should the constitution. It is ignorant to think that everything is fine and the constitution prevents dictatorships. Just because it was designed to doesn't make it so. Someone had to say it. Is the constitution a good thing? Of course! I'm not saying that. It's one of the greatest inventions in this world. What I am saying is that not changing the constitution eliminates its whole purpose. The constitution was created to make changes and improvements to the world at that time. It's now the 21st century. Am I saying that freedom of speech was only important at that time and not now? No, but I'm saying that some things are. The right to burn witches was once seen as important, but now it's not. Some things need to change. The world changes and that's why the constitution changes. Dictatorships are unacceptable and people need to accept that anything can be flawed including the constitution. The constitution was built to change and improve the world, so let's keep moving forward.
That's my one cent. (The other was spent by Bush in Iraq.)
2007-01-13 13:38:12 · answer #2 · answered by yoink78 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You obviously do not understand what a dictator is. The U.S. Constitution is what PREVENTS a dictator rising to power. As you will see over the next two years, a president without legislative support does not control the legislative agenda - which make a dictatorship pretty much impossible. And don't forget the Congress' power to impeach the president.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I am NOT American. I live in Canada, and I can tell you that the Canadian Constitution (much of which, like in the UK, is not actually written down) has way more potential for abuse than the US Constitution.
2007-01-13 15:37:40 · answer #3 · answered by Brad A 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that the problem was not with the document, but with a government who had leaned to far to one end of the political spectrum. We lost the balance that we need, and when all three branches shifted to the right the government became too willing to overlook violation of the Constitution. I think that the election of Democrats in 2006 will help regain some of the balance our country needs.
2007-01-13 13:31:51 · answer #4 · answered by some_guy_times_50 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think if all branches of Government would hold up their responsibilities there could not be a dictator. The constitution can't cover for all incompetetent elected representatives.
2007-01-13 13:28:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. But the president has no regard for the Constitution and often acts in defiance of it. He has been quoted as saying, "The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper." His signing statements (more in his term so far than all the presidents in the history of the country) show total disregard for the law, as he continually exempts himself from it. The Constitution is ironclad; we're just not using it any more.
2007-01-13 13:29:37 · answer #6 · answered by keepsondancing 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, I see no hole in the Constitution that allows foe a dictator.
2007-01-13 13:24:59 · answer #7 · answered by Citicop 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am not trying to be offensive here, I swear I'm not, but I think if you can even ask such a question, you need to go live under a REAL dictatorship. You'd be BEGGING to come back and have Bush for a President.
I respect your right to dissent, but this kind of hysterical rhetoric just makes your side look foolish.
Have a nice day.
2007-01-13 13:32:16 · answer #8 · answered by Jadis 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Nancy Pelosi is sure looking for that hole. You're right she is definitely showing some pre-dictatorship qualities. She seems to think that she is the commander in chief.
2007-01-13 13:34:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Looking at the current situation and what has been happening over the last 6 years it would appear so. Scary.
2007-01-13 13:30:15 · answer #10 · answered by Schona 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋