English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

In the old days, our government was designed to consist of a balance of powers, in a system known as "checks and balances." The president has seen fit to eliminate these checks through his use of signing statements. President Bush has written more signing statements than all previous US presidents combined.

President Clinton issued 140 signing statements, frequently acknowledging the crafters of the bills he signed, or perhaps how he intended to enforce them. President George H. W. Bush issued 232 signing statements during his 4 year term. When congress passed a law reiterating America's opposition to the use of torture, President Bush included a statement exempting himself and the executive branch from its purview.

Is it time our civics textbooks were rewritten to reflect this new reality?

2007-08-03 11:15:05 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

Chuck, that's clever. Blaming Clinton, who twice tried to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, for our unprovoked war in Iraq. President Bush, on the other hand, has now TWICE allowed Osama to escape unscathed. Why is that?

And why don't conservatives ever think to blame the first WTC attack on George H. W. Bush, since it occurred a mere 38 days into Clinton's term in office, instead of nine months? Besides, members of Clinton's administration made valiant efforts to warn Bush of the threat Osama posed--to no avail. Bush preferred to continue one of the longest vacations of any sitting US president the months before the attack, and now faults Iraq's parliament for deigning to take shorter vacations than his.

2007-08-03 12:21:05 · update #1

4 answers

time, and the 2008 elections, will tell! the next president will have a choice to make-either continue with the 'unitary executive' style of presidency, or restore the system of checks and balances-the question is, which candidate would be able to resist the unfettered power and secrecy that cheney/bush has instituted? it's unclear to me, although some would argue that hilary would love to have that kind of power-the candidate i would be most concerned about would have to be rudy-that type of 'governing' is just an extension of how he viewed his role as mayor of new york. mitt romney would likely cherish a chance to govern in the same manner as well-you can expect that 'niceties' like the geneva convention and the principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers would be routinely ignored by either man should they win

2007-08-04 00:13:25 · answer #1 · answered by spike missing debra m 7 · 0 0

huh?
although the textbooks probably do need updating to include a lot of things, with the invention of the computer, there is disrespect, and things taken out of context, perhaps the books should stay the same until everyone gets back to civility, morality and etiquette.

2007-08-03 22:20:48 · answer #2 · answered by sophieb 7 · 0 0

Sorry, not going to fall for your trap. You failed to mention Cigar Clinton Set the stage for 9/11 and we are now at WAR!

2007-08-03 18:25:43 · answer #3 · answered by The Voice of Reason 7 · 0 1

Public schools still teach civics at all? I thought they just had classes about "my two daddies".

2007-08-03 18:18:19 · answer #4 · answered by CJ 6 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers