about how there are three branches of the government and g.w.b only is one, the executive branch? NOTICE PS: i don't usually vote and i only sometimes watch the news so i'm not so savvy but this keeps accouring to me. please just tell me your opinion, don't call me an idiot or any other form of flaming, plz.
2007-09-02 12:18:13 · 11 answers · asked by marsh 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Actually, you ask a good question in a roundabout sort of way...Bush does virtually nothing apart from Congress...your vote for Congress impacts our government in a more personal way than your vote for President. On the other hand, the President nominates Supreme Court Justices, who have a greater impact on our way of life than Representatives, Senators or the President because of the way the Constitution has shaken out over the last 226 years...Thus, I vote Republican, because I trust Conservative jurisprudence over Liberal jurispudence.
2007-09-02 12:27:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I've noticed that Bush is only one branch of the government. For 6 years of his term, his party also controlled the other two branches.
First, the Supreme Court made him president by a not so resounding 5-4 margin. No matter if he was properly elected or not, the arguments used to support Gore V Bush defied any logic or legal precedent. If I am to unstand the ruling (which I have read in it's entirety and which has been sitting on my nightstand for the past 7 years) the constitutional standard that each vote counts equally means that we should not try to count all the votes.
Since then, every assault on the Constitution made by the Executive has been rubber stamped by the Court by the same 5-4 margin. Great checks and balances, heh?
Then there is the legislative branch which was also in the Republican's hands for 6 years and which marched lock-step with every whim of the executive. Not a single veto needed in 6 years. Unprecedented lack of checks and balances.
So, yes, without calling any names or flaming, I must just say that many of us have noticed what is going on.
2007-09-02 12:51:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You do have a very good point. I am one of those who absolutely HATES Bush. At the same time, the voters gave the Democrats control of Congress in the mid-term elections with the idea that the Congress would stand up to Bush.
They have not done so, meaning that they rightfully deserve some of the blame as well.
2007-09-02 17:37:03 · answer #3 · answered by frenchy62 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The dummies of usa did not vote for him. They spent all their time whining approximately how difficult it replaced into to artwork the pollmachines, and making us count quantity ballots a hundred circumstances hoping for various effects. Now the dummies of usa declare that the election replaced into stolen, as is seen in 0.5 of the responses to this question.
2016-10-17 12:48:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't seem to matter what the rest of the gov't thinks.. he vetos everything.. and never considers the fact that others may be right.. "The gov't is for the ppl, by the ppl".... is a line of BS. There are far more ppl that disagree with the president than agree with him. Yet, it's GWB's personal decisions that always seem to prevail.
2007-09-02 14:54:47 · answer #5 · answered by hunnybblu 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What are the 3 branches, executive, legislative and judicial, right?
So, you've got Congress as legislative, and they're all dirty cronies of GWB's too busy voting for their pay raises to worry about the rest of us fools.
Or you've got judges appointed by the president too busy with lawsuits over hot coffee to worry about what GWB is up to.
You know who's stupider? 50% of Americans who voted for him the second time around. I'm proud to say I did not.
Checks and balances, yeah right. Deals and favoritism and media skew is more like it.
2007-09-02 12:31:31 · answer #6 · answered by Momof2grrls 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Even he isn't the whole executive branch all by himself. A lot of other people voted to go to Iraq in both parties so you can't blame the whole thing on him. It could have been overridden by Congress, but they didn't because they realised Saddam was a dangerous psycho!
2007-09-02 12:25:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
As the Chief Executive, he deserves all of the criticism he gets, particularly for the results of policies he has championed. If a law for whose passage his veto was overridden ever causes harm, he will be able to avoid most of the shame.
2007-09-02 12:28:04 · answer #8 · answered by Captain Atom 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You said it didn't you? He is the head of the executive. Look up the word execute. It means to perform, to carry out. It is his job to see to it that the government carries out the task given it by the other branches. If the government isn't working as it should, it's because the chief executive isn't performing.
2007-09-02 12:26:04 · answer #9 · answered by GeauxJoe 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
yes but his control as commander and cheif and repressentative of the american people make him basicly the leader of the people. the other 2 branches exist as part of a checks and balances system.
2007-09-02 12:32:48 · answer #10 · answered by The cryptic paranoid 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋