You are correct. Too many people do not understand the balance of power, or the way in which it is implemented. Take your first answer who talks about Bush's signing statements. These statements do not have the force of law and are still subject to challenge before the Supreme Court. While Mr. Bush has tried to claim some extraordinary powers for the Executive Branch it does not mean that he can enact and use those powers freely just because he states he can. Almost anything the President does must be approved by Congress and even those things which Congress approves are still subject to Supreme Court review. The system does work, but it does not benefit the cause of the Bush haters to admit this fact. They gain more converts by presenting the false impression that Mr. Bush is dictatorial and thus extremely dangerous. However, it should also be noted that it is commonplace to blame whoever occupies the head seat of power for all that occurs during their tenure in the office. As to your comment about Mr. Bush being a mastermind. I have always found it amusing that the same people who think this also believe that he is the most stupid man on the planet. I don't know about anyone else, but this always seemed like a Catch-22 to me. I guess the real answer to your question would be, what has happened to Civics class in our schools today? It does appear, based on some claims made, that it is not really being taught anymore.
To those posting on abuses of power and how Mr. Bush is the worst President ever in this area. I would say not even close. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus during the civil war and took action against dissenting voices in government based solely on negative statements against the war. Roosevelt interred thousands of American Citizens during World War II based on their nationality alone. These are just 2 examples and they show that Bush does not even come close to being the worst Constitutional violator in the history of our great Republic.
2007-03-26 23:57:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by Bryan 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
Consider this possibility: You are informed on the basics of constitutional law and US government. But could you be unaware of how the Bush administration has changed the way our federal government is run, and how it has disregarded of the constitution and other laws and precedents?
The executive branch HAS become the most powerful branch, particularly under Bush and it has often usurped the law making power of Congress. Bush pushed the Patriot Act and he and his neoconservative operatives in the government got the Republican Congress to rubber stamp it and many other bills. If a bill somehow crossed Bush's desk that he didn't like, such as the one restricting the torture of prisoners and detainees, he'd issue a "signing statement" in which he stated that he wouldn't enforce the bill the way it was written. This fact alone should shock anyone who has read the plain words of Article I of the constitution.
The neoconservative's theory behind the signing statement is that we don't have a three part government where each branch balances and checks the excess of the the others; instead we have a "unitary executive".
I urge you to read something about the unitary executive or the power grabs of the Bush administration. Then ask yourself whether the high school kids get the basic gist of what Bush and his staff have been doing for the past 6 years.
2007-03-26 21:30:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
You are completely right when discussing our true form of government. In democratic theory the president does not lead alone, we indeed have a bureaucratic system.However, it seems as young people today don't understand that factor,
I recently finished H.S last year here in liberal San Francisco. To be fair, I would like to say most teachers try to be moderate in the class room. although it is obvious what there political beliefs are from the get-go. Every so often I would get these teachers who made no attempt to be moderate and just blurred out liberal non sense in the classroom. They push there own political beliefs and not facts into the heads of these city kids, many whom are from low income family's. They bash Bush and ridicule him, basically blaming him for everything. The smart kids like myself now better, but the majority don't. The mere fact the teacher "said it, so it must be true" goes unquestioned. Some of my classmates even want to blame bush for the poverty and crime rate our city has.
I guess that's just how political affiliation spreads -through the classroom. It's a shame...but true.
2007-03-26 21:47:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by yellowmedia 3
·
4⤊
1⤋
You make a good point about Americans believing the President holds more power than he really does. I see that belief not so much in the anti-Bush voices but many of the pro-Bush voices who complain that Congress is somehow anti-American for questioning our President... as if Congress weren't mentioned BEFORE the president in our Constitution, as if it weren't supposed to have MORE power than any individual leader.
It's true that Bush couldn't have done any of this alone. But there is a kernal of truth in the fact that Bush has taken on more powers than most presidents have had. He certainly seems to believe that he is, indeed, "The Decider," no matter what his Congress or judges think.
I doubt he will try to keep his presidency "forever." But there has been some talk about a "permanent political party" plan in connection to Cheney and Karl Rove, one that suffered a major blow last November.
2007-03-26 21:29:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by Vaughn 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
Any high school graduate knows the constitution give presidents a lot of power. The executive branch has always been the most powerful branch. In the last several decades, the Supreme Court has become the most powerful branch of government.
Here are some things you should know. Presidents control the military, the CIA, the Justice Department, the treasury, the border patrol, the department of Homeland Security, etc. Also, a president's powers expand during the time of war.
Presidents also have the right to attack other countries anytime they deem it necessary (and congress has the right to declare war). High school graduates know F.D.R. and Truman decided the out come of World War 2, not congress.
Many people say Democrat Clinton abused his presidential powers. For example, Clinton was sued by people when he used force to return refugees to haiti. The Supreme Court rightly said Clinton did nothing wrong.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?query=HAITI-INTERNATIONAL%20RELATIONS-US&field=des&match=exact
2007-03-26 21:33:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by a bush family member 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
Our gov't is secular. All persons have the equal balloting rights right here. It simply occurs to have Christians as the bulk. Now, I'm no longer pronouncing that specified Christians in vigor are not abusing that vigor... they do, really generally. But this isn't a Christian country... it isn't a theocracy.
2016-09-05 17:27:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
In violation of his oath of office, Bush used signing statements to negate laws passed by Congress, not with a veto, but with his personal opinion. Bush, thus, elevated himself above the rule of law that has protected America from becoming a tyranny and made a mockery of the separation of powers that are a foundation of American liberty.
With the overnight destruction of civil liberties that were 800 years in their creation, the United States stands at a watershed. If the legislation that has been put on the books permitting spying on Americans without a court warrant, legalizing torture and self-incrimination, and repealing habeas corpus and the right to an attorney remains on the books, the United States will be controlled by regime regardless of which party is in power.
Our elected representatives, if not the American people, now regard as normal such heinous actions as war crimes, the rape of the Constitution, self-serving use of government office, and the constant stream of lies and propaganda from the highest offices of the executive branch.
Like kids desensitized to violence by violent video games and movies and pornography addicts desensitized to sex, we have become desensitized by the avalanche of Bush-Cheney crimes, lies, and disdain for Congress, courts, and public opinion.
The previous occupant of the White House could not escape being impeached by the House of Representatives for lying about a consensual Oval Office sexual affair. President Nixon and his vice president, a saintly pair compared to Bush-Cheney, were both driven from office for offenses that are inconsequential by comparison. Liberals branded Ronald Reagan the "Teflon President," but the neoconservatives' Iran-Contra scandal was a mere dress rehearsal for their machinations in the Bush regime.
If the notion has departed that the highest political offices in the land are supposed to be occupied by people who are honest and faithful to their oath to the Constitution, then we are far advanced on the road to tyranny.
2007-03-26 21:22:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by big-brother 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
Individual freedom is the dream of our age. It's what our leaders promise to give us, it defines how we think of ourselves and, repeatedly, we have gone to war to impose freedom around the world. But if you step back and look at what freedom actually means for us today, it's a strange and limited kind of freedom.
Politicians promised to liberate us from the old dead hand of bureaucracy, but they have created an evermore controlling system of social management, driven by targets and numbers. Governments committed to freedom of choice have presided over a rise in inequality and a dramatic collapse in social mobility. And abroad, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the attempt to enforce freedom has led to bloody mayhem and the rise of an authoritarian anti-democratic Islamism. This, in turn, has helped inspire terrorist attacks in Britain. In response, the Government has dismantled long-standing laws designed to protect our freedom.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/noise/?id=trap
2007-03-27 01:54:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
It's because they haven't taken civics, so they just parrot what other uninformed people are saying. The answer really is that simple.
I wish it was possible to make it mandatory for every person who wishes to comment on politics to at least take civics, if not economics. Perhaps then we would finally be rid of the ignorance.
2007-03-26 21:36:23
·
answer #9
·
answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
It's call, No Education.
2007-03-27 01:30:38
·
answer #10
·
answered by PREACHER'S WIFE 5
·
2⤊
1⤋