Do you want the next President to keep or expand on the divisive powers Bush has achieved or restore balance?

Question

between the three branches of government that should have always existed?

Answer 1

I think President Bush has worked within the laws granted him by the Consitution of the United States. We have had a 'do nothing Democrate' congress and house, and even though they have had the 'balance' that our Fathers provided, they don't have the sense to use it! All the Democrates have wanted to do is 'fight Bush'........ they have done nothing to uphold their promises if elected. History will prove that President Bush is a great President!! He has kept us safe - against all the undermining he had to deal with. People forget that, Bush,not Clinton, stood up and protected the American people!!!!

Answer 2

I believe that the branches are not suppose to be in bed with each other. They are to remain divisive, as this ensures the protection of the Constitution. If the process was quick and easy, than the probability of crap coming into the mix that would weaken the Constitution would come into the fold. This is why our system seems so slow. The Founding Fathers would have rather their be a million good laws that didn't come into affect if it meant one bad law didn't make it through. So, I say keep them separate and increase the checks and balances that maintains the integrity of the system.

Answer 3

The answer can be found by looking at who supported the new legislation. For example, look into the new bill (almost law - just waiting for the senate) that restricts your freedom of speech and gives the government the power to monitor your internet usage - Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. It has a deceptive name - it is aimed at American dissent. Democrats are in on it too, so the answer is "probably". They would not have supported it if there was no intention to use it. That law allows the government to treat you as a terrorist for expressing a view contrary to the government's view.

Answer 4

what divisive powers are you referring to?

If you mean the final authority on te military, that power is an executive power, and legislators have no authority over HOW the military gets used, only THAT the military is used. Even then the national Congress hasnt had the conejos to actually DECLARE war since 1941. Mr Bush asked for and received permission to act in 2001, so he is well within his bounds on that point.

If you want to discuss other powers, I must remind you that in the late 60s and early 70s, liberal-installed judges and justices have effectively legislated from the bench, a clear violation of the separation of powers. by this i mean that instead of a judge saying "this law is unconstituional because" and leaving it at that, liberal judges have gone the extra step further of saying what they want the law to really mean and issuing a ruling based on what they PROJECT. An example of this was the 1973 Roe v Wade case, because no law was ever passed saying it was a right.

In addition, there are very many examples of using Executive Orders to legislate, again a violation of separation of powers. I do not mean orders where for example, the PATCO workers were fired in the 80s, but instead the kind where China was sold land of former military bases, or missile technology sold to Chi-Coms, or the designation of federal land taken from private ownership. President Clinton once was even documented to have said "stroke of the pen, law of the land. kinda cool!" THAT is a flagrant and blatant out and out attempt to usurp the separation of powers into an autocratic existence.

there is a lot more to the topic you want to discuss than the hate-based accusations of the current disappointment in office.

Answer 5

Quote
Well, if you want anything done by the next President I would suggest voting Republican because all that a Democrat will do is increase your taxes.
End Quote

I agree

Answer 6

Hillary's main job at the beginning will be to revise the laws that have in this admin. given Bush virtually unlimited powers. She will need to get bipartisan support for the improvement of this country, unlike what Bush has been doing. Also, the Repubes in congress needs to start thinking about the people and stop thinking about looking good for the Bush sympathizers.

Answer 7

Well, if you want anything done by the next President I would suggest voting Republican because all that a Democrat will do is increase your taxes.

Answer 8

Regardless of party, it will depend upon who the next President is.

Someone like Clinton will attempt to expand their power at all costs. Others will choose a similar but less agressive path.

It's highly unlikely that the next President will move to reduce his or her power - regardless of which President or constitutional article endowed him or her with that power.

Answer 9

Restore Balance, of course! I am voting for Dennis Kucinich *sm*

Answer 10

Bush has done nothing good for this country other than running his party into the ground.

All the things he promised in 2000 has gone down the tubes, due to the war he started.

No Child Going Ahead.