...when it comes to the war in Iraq? The majority of the people and the majority of the Congress disagree with the president, but his way moves forward. Should our system really work this way?
2007-01-15 09:56:34 · 12 answers · asked by Bob Little 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
That guy Max sure does have a mixed up view of things. You don't think the USA's government is perfect so just leave? Over 50% of the public voted against Bush in the last election. I suppose they should all just leave, too?
2007-01-15 10:07:28 · update #1
By the way...I've read the Constitution. I know this is how it's designed to work. I just wonder if it's really a reasonable amount of power to give to just one person.
2007-01-15 10:10:11 · update #2
I am well aware there are three branches of the government. It is indeed the whole system that I believe is need of adjustment to reduce the power of one person.
2007-01-15 10:16:57 · update #3
Well, technically, Congress can restrict funding to the troops and thus force them to either go home or starve. Further, while the president has the authority as commander in chief to send troops anywhere he wishes to, Congress must aprove it within 90 days or they must be brought home. It is an interesting system, and many Presidents certainly have taken more interest in Congress' opinion on matters in the past, but it has served us well throughout history so let's hope this is only a momentary problem with it.
2007-01-15 10:01:33 · answer #1 · answered by John C 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ummm... I was under the impression that we have 3 branches of government. Executive, congressional and the supreme court. If you are disappointed, maybe you should be disappointed with the system as a whole.
PS: Cheer up. We only have to put up with this president for another two years. Then we can complain about the next one. Until then, let no one do anything that will put our soldiers at risk. These men and women risk their lives everyday so that people who disagree with our system of government can have their voice.
2007-01-15 10:11:23 · answer #2 · answered by sgt_cook 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You do understand that congress writes the spending quotes optimal marvelous? All dems shrink than reagan and surpluses shrink than clinton have been given right here from a rebylican congress. sure the 1st 6 years of bush grew to alter into all republican besides the undeniable fact that the purely spectacular 2 ubder democrat congress had the optimal spending. All presidents and congresses have spent too lots the two written or signed off on in compromise. How approximately we inventory up the infantile blame interest and paintings on ideas..... not Yahoo ideas!!
2016-10-31 05:02:04 · answer #3 · answered by dembinski 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Things have gone wrong, but it's in our best interest to fight over there than over here. Pulling out now is a big mistake. One thing Bush could do is let these soldiers fight the way they know how. Let these soldiers loose ,without the fear of court marshal. We don't need all of congress making the choice. I don't care whether or not the President is Rebublican or Democrat. Our fore fathers wanted it this way. At the start of the US, the majority wanted to stay the way it was and not split off from England.
2007-01-15 10:10:42 · answer #4 · answered by Fly Boy 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would suggest, respectfully, that you read the Constitution of the United States as to the powers of the three branches of government, the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary.
2007-01-15 10:08:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
you should be disappointed that the war being run into the ground for other objectives than the good of the usa, by a stubborn monkey, but you shouldnt be surprised. He has been making and/or breaking laws since his daddys handpicked court and corporations bought the election.
2007-01-15 10:23:10 · answer #6 · answered by tomhale138 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do you know what happens when you cut the funding to soldiers in the field, they die. Know what happens when a worldpower runs away with their tail between their legs? They are perceived as weak and easy targets. Witness the collapse of the USSR several years after they abandoned Afghanstan in less than victorious circumstances.
We should have never invaded Iraq, but since we have we are committed for a number of selfish reasons to pursue the objective to completion.
As Patton observed " America loathes losers".
2007-01-15 10:03:37 · answer #7 · answered by Dane 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes you should be disappointed. Blame the Congress for giving the Executive the power to do this.
2007-01-15 10:00:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Congress has the power of the purse, they just are too scared to use it. They just want to complain instead of do anything. Blame them.
2007-01-15 10:04:22 · answer #9 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Under Bush, there is no longer a "balance of power". He has manipulated it all in the guise of terror. It is dangerous for one man to have that power. It is even far more dangerous when that one man is George W. Bush.
2007-01-15 10:14:23 · answer #10 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋