Who needs three branches of government anyway?

Question

"In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday, (Attorney General)Gonzales says judges generally should defer to the will of the president and Congress when deciding national security cases. He also raps jurists who “apply an activist philosophy that stretches the law to suit policy preferences.”
Absolutely!
Why don't we just get rid of courts altogether and just let the President make ALL the decisions without question?
Pretty soon we can just make any policy or executive decision a "national security" issue.
Not going to a Christian church every Sunday?
"The President of the United States hereby orders all citizens to attend Sunday morning services at the Baptist church of their choice, so that, for national security reasons, we at least know where everyone will be for a few hours every Sunday morning."
"The President of United States orders all US citizens to allow an 'in-residence' monitoring system, that for national security reasons, is necessary for the protect US interests.

Laura, Laura, Laura-----
"I really don't know where you came up with this junk, but it doesn't make sense because Gonzales would never say anything like that."

Here's the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16668110/
"If you don't know the system, read books on the U.S. Constitution, History and Government."
I might argue that I have a better understanding of our Constitution than this country's chief law enforcement officer, or his boss.
"There will never be such a thing as in-house monitoring or getting everyone to attend one church to keep an eye on the. It a stupid idea that could never gain any footing; the U.S. Constitution will not allow it."
Actually, my "suggestions" were tongue-in-cheek.
However, I would like to point out that 20 years ago, if someone had suggested that the government has the authority to wiretap citizens, inspect their mail or examine their financial records, all without a warrant, the response would have been, "the Constitution will not allow it

Answer 1

I wasn't sure where you were going with this at first .. but here is my answer.... I agree, All Hail King George I

Answer 2

I really don't know where you came up with this junk, but it doesn't make sense because Gonzales would never say anything like that. If you're serious about what government does go to: http://www.whitehouse.gov

Since the day our government was divided into a the Federal, Legislative and Judicial segments, it was designed for the system of checks and balances. Don't judge the situation of being at war with political gain, nor should it be confused with superior domination. You are drastically wrong and so are others who try to talk people into these ideas, which are propaganda and a load of garbage.

The system works; legislative, checks judicial, judicial checks legislative and legislative and judicial checks ...namely the pres.

If you don't know the system, read books on the U.S. Constitution, History and Government. You've been living your life on 'here-say evidence', junk websites, and that is just naive. There will never be such a thing as in-house monitoring or getting everyone to attend one church to keep an eye on the. It a stupid idea that could never gain any footing; the U.S. Constitution will not allow it.

Answer 3

The fact is that it is human nature for some people to want power over others. With a divided government at least there is a certain amount of effort that that power grabbing type has to spend fighting each other instead of just going directly to controlling the citizens.

After 230 years though, those walls have become very thin. The legislative branch gives the executive branch the power to, de facto, create law by executive organization. The judicial branch, by choosing how to "interpret" a "living and evolving law," makes its own set of laws, regardless of what they were intended to do or not do. Those both result in the legislative branch trying to control the others by, for example, ideological tests for the appointment of judges or cabinet officials.

Just about the whole thing has devolved into a popularity and special interest contest. It's all about who can take what from who in order to please those to whom they then give the money and power to.

The essence of government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.-- James Madison (1751 - 1836) US president (4th),

"Beware the greedy hand of government, thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry." --Thomas Paine

"We create this Constitution, not to bind the hands of men, but, to bind the hands of government!" - Thomas Jefferson

Answer 4

Sounds good to me, Brother! All Hail George Bush, Emperor of the Greatest Christian Empire the Earth Has Ever Known!

Answer 5

This is why I would never want to be in Government. If the branches don't work together, they are accused of being obstructionist. If they do, they are accused of collaboration.

Answer 6

I think I'll stick with having 3 branches of government, thank you.

Answer 7

This is exactly what Der Fuer Bush wants.

Answer 8

Would you trust one man (or woman...?) to make "ALL the decisions without question?" why the hell would you ever give absolute power to anyone...? Stalin? Hitler? Dubya?

Answer 9

congress suggests the laws, the president signs them into law, the supreme court decides weather those laws are constitutional, and the Kardashians are there to make the politicians look smart by comparison.

Answer 10

Tea, darling?