but whatever happened to checks and balances, are we to give him supreme control ??? your thoughts
2007-02-22 07:55:46 · 11 answers · asked by dragongml 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
How long have you had this bondage fixation with politicians?
2007-02-22 07:59:00 · answer #1 · answered by wizjp 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The President is Commander In Chief of the Millitary. It's a constitutional thing. Get over it.
The Congress passes laws for funding, taxes, etc. If they feel strongly enough about an issue, they can just cut funding from the millitary, and deny future funding requests.
The President's powers are limitted by available funds.
If the Democrats want to stop the war, let them drop funding from the budget - it's their option to do so. They make the budget - so I guess we'll see if they're REALLY serious later this year.
Of course, they could just pass another non-binding resolution....yeah, that's the ticket!
2007-02-22 16:00:33 · answer #2 · answered by jbtascam 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Which specific checks & balances are you talking about? Do you want to add some that are NOT in the Constitution? Many already HAVE been added. No one has suggested that the president should have unlimited power, that is just a liberal straw man.
2007-02-22 16:00:29 · answer #3 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you are talking about waging war, only, the President has the ultimate responsibility. The legislators cannot wage war; it is not possible for a committee of 535 so called experts to make such decisions.
It is obvious that judges cannot decide war versus no war. They cannot agree on interpretations of the laws.
I think the President should use all of the might of the US military and quit trying to fight politically correct wars.
2007-02-22 16:02:05 · answer #4 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How does allowing the president to defend the country properly violate the principle of checks and balances? One of the basic functions of the head executive of the country is commander-in-chief, so by preventing him from doing this, CONGRESS is violating the principle of checks and balances.
2007-02-22 16:06:41 · answer #5 · answered by Daniel A: Zionist Pig 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Never in the history of the US has a president been allotted the amount of authority that Bush has. Bush was given the authority to declare war on another country.
2007-02-22 15:59:57 · answer #6 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They don't believe that. It's the typical power play of a president who doesn't have a congress that is friendly to him. If Clinton weren't so busy defending himself against the vicious congress he had to deal with in his last four years, he would have tried it too.
2007-02-22 16:01:38 · answer #7 · answered by wayfaroutthere 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The executive branch thinks that check and balances are as quaint as the Geneva conventions....
"Just shut your eyes and quit complaining... we'll protect you from the terrorists"
2007-02-22 16:00:25 · answer #8 · answered by Rick 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Exactly, that's the definition of a dictator. All power resting in the hands of one person with a republican, uh, i mean rubber stamp legislature. See Hugo Chavez, hitler
2007-02-22 15:59:57 · answer #9 · answered by guy o 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think handcuffs are the standard restraint now days.
Go big Red Go
2007-02-22 15:59:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evidently you have a limited understanding of the constitution
2007-02-22 15:58:26 · answer #11 · answered by webbrew 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋