Gonzo is Gone!

What are you babbling about? Bush offered to allow the Congress to ask anything ( within the specific scope of the issue) and his aides would be required to answer.

Now if you mean Bush should just allow Congress to go on a fishing expedition about anything and everything, your high.

ALLOW? Who the fuck do you think Bush is? Congress doesn't need to be told what it can ask when they have the right to do so. It is you who are high if you think that the Representatives of the various districts and the Senators of the various states are going to allow George Bush to define the terms of Congressional hearings. This is why they issue subpoenas and required that the testimony be under oath. Members of Congress have to go back to their districts and States and as a result are more accessible to those who they pretend to represent. If a person wants to talk to his State Senator or his Representative he would only have to drive a few miles to his District Office to get answers. That is the substance of democracy which our system tends to undermine and it is one of the last hold-outs for those who love freedom, democracy and representation. Districts are too large as it is but at least a lot of people can still get a face to face meeting with their Senator or Representative and many of them know them personally. I applaud Congress for saying to the stranger from Crawford, Texas who calls himself George that they won't let the people of their towns and states be without a voice. My response to what you have said is for CONGRESS TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS AND IF BUSH REFUSES TO ALLOW THOSE WHO WORK FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND WHO ARE GIVING HIM ADVICE TO ALSO ANSWER TO US THAN CONGRESS SHOULD HOLD THEM IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS AND BY EXTENSION THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND IF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WON'T PROSECUTE THEM THAN CONGRESS SHOULD SEND THE SERGEANT AT ARMS TO ARREST THEM, BRING THEM TO CONGRESS AND TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE UNTIL THEY ANSWER TO OUR NEIGHBORS. I AM SURE THAT THEY WON'T LIKE BEING LOCKED IN A SENATE OFFICE. :wtf:
 
A U.S. attorney is not a "staff member"... your guy seems to have forgotten that they aren't GOP operatives.

Funny how y'all hate checks and balances when it's your side being checked.

Of course they aren't staff members of the President and that is why the Constitution requires them to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The President basically recommends people he thinks are qualified to be U.S. Attorneys and the Congress hires them in behalf of the American people who they work for. They answer to the American people through the Congress. The ability of the President to terminate a U.S. Attorney exists only because Congress enacted a statute that allows the President to exercise a Congressional authority. That he would terminate those who were hired by the American people to do a job for political purposes is unacceptable. The whole idea behind checks and balances is so that those who are closet to the people would have more authority than those more removed. This is why when you read the Constitution you see that Article I bestows more power on Congress than on the President or the Courts. There is not a single power of the President that Congress doesn't also hold in part while there are powers of Congress that the President has no authority over. A simple reading of the Constitution makes this clear. It shows beyond any doubt that the more powerful of the three branches is the Congress and that the power to check them is divided between the Courts, the President and the states and by each other. The reason that there is two branches of Congress is because dividing the most powerful branch checks it but when push comes to shove those who are directly responsible to the American people will win over the President even in the Courts. This is our last hope to stop the monarchist pieces of shit like RetiredGySgt and Georgie Bush.
 
Ohh I forget, Bush also should be able to require testimony under oath on why any staff member was fired from any Congressional staff. I mean that is about what the dems want in regards why a President can fire his appointees when he wants.

Except U.S. Attorney's are not Bush's staff. They are Officers of the United States Government. Their responsibilities are established by the Constitution and by statutes enacted by Congress. Congressional staff are not officers of the United States Government and do not answer to the American people. It is obvious that you are ignorant of the Constitution and the law otherwise you would know that U.S. Attorneys are not appointed by the President but are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Now let's be logical here. The person who makes the final decision is the boss (i.e., a HR director doesn't hire an employee instead those who confirm the decision of the HR director are doing the hiring). Bush merely recommends those who he thinks should serve as U.S. Attorneys but they are not employees of the President. To even suggest that this is the case is dumb. You are suggesting that the President has complete control of our fucking government and that every officer of the U.S. Government is responsible only to the President. You seem to forget that Congress has the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." And that power includes the President and U.S. Attorneys. To even suggest that every officer of Government is nothing more than staff of the President is really dumb. Whose next? The Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, and everyone else will be nothing more than employees of the King. :eusa_naughty:
 
Yup, Bush should demand all members of Congress and all staff be required to testify under oath as to their activities regarding any leaks from Congress. Why ever would Congress object? Well unless they have something to hide.

The answer to that is that he is not the fucking King. Congress has no say in who the President hires for his personal staff and neither does the President of the personal staff of members of Congress. Congress has investigatory powers into the Executive Department but the President has no such power in respect to Congress. U.S. Attorneys are not the personal staff of the President anymore than Generals are his personal staff. They are Officers of the United States just like the President and members of Congress are Officers of the United States. Congress has the constitutional authority to make any and all rules and laws necessary for them to carry into effect any of the powers granted to them by the Constitution or by law. U.S. Attorneys represent the United States (or the states United) and not George W. Bush. Their duties are assigned to them by law and not by the President and Congress decides what powers, if any U.S. Attorneys have. Congress has the constitutional authority to remove them from office but the only reason the President can do so is because the Congress has granted him that ability but he still has to answer to Congress for firing someone who was hired by them to work for the American people. I suggest that you move your ass back before the Magna Carta asshole because you would be more at home. :eusa_naughty:
 
ahh so you have no problem with President Bush ordering Congressional aides and Congressmen to testify under oath what they know about leaks and other illegal activity? And they should not be able to claim that as members of the legislature they are protected from such an effort by the executive, right?

There is just one problem with that and that is the immunity of members of Congress when it comes to performing their constitutional responsibilities or in other words "they shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." The President doesn't have the authority to question members of Congress or their staff. The power to investigate whether they committed a felony was granted to the Justice Department by the U.S. Congress. The President has no authority in this respect instead the Congress exercising its authority granted this responsibility to the Officers of the United States who work in the Justice Department (again, a creation of the Congress and not a Constitutional body). The President has no say in this matter but the United States Congress did enact statutes that require members of the President staff to answer to them and guess what the Constitution allows them to do so or in other words Congress has the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." :eusa_dance: If the President wants the power to question Congressmen and their staff than he should ask Congress to pass a law that grants him this power but that is unlikely to happen since I think they will settle for the system in place that already allows members of Congress and their staff to be questioned under certain circumstances.
 
A U.S. attorney is not a "staff member"... your guy seems to have forgotten that they aren't GOP operatives.

Funny how y'all hate checks and balances when it's your side being checked.

They most assuaredely ARE Political appointees. They serve at the WHIM of the President. You know it, you just pretend otherwise.

As for you and Edwards laughable comments on the power of Congress, Once again, Congress can not force the President to do what they want simply by demanding it. THAT is checks and balances. They don't like what he has offered, they have another option, TAKE it to COURT. Failing that the President most surely can make any requirement he chooses for the participation of HIS branch of Government in this matter.

If it is so cut and dried, why hasn't there been a petition before a court to settle the matter? That is after all the role of the Courts in our Government.
 
There is just one problem with that and that is the immunity of members of Congress when it comes to performing their constitutional responsibilities or in other words "they shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." The President doesn't have the authority to question members of Congress or their staff. The power to investigate whether they committed a felony was granted to the Justice Department by the U.S. Congress. The President has no authority in this respect instead the Congress exercising its authority granted this responsibility to the Officers of the United States who work in the Justice Department (again, a creation of the Congress and not a Constitutional body). The President has no say in this matter but the United States Congress did enact statutes that require members of the President staff to answer to them and guess what the Constitution allows them to do so or in other words Congress has the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." :eusa_dance: If the President wants the power to question Congressmen and their staff than he should ask Congress to pass a law that grants him this power but that is unlikely to happen since I think they will settle for the system in place that already allows members of Congress and their staff to be questioned under certain circumstances.

Isuggest you reread your Constitution and rather than pick and chose you do so as a whole. The Checks and balances ensure Congress can NOT just make any demand they please of the Executive. It is protected from Congress JUST as Congress is protected from the Executive. And the Courts exist BY the Constitution. The Supreme Court is directly mentioned and empowered in the Constitution. It has been accepted by all 3 branches since 1800 that the Supreme Court will rule on disputes between the Bodies of the Government and the Constitutionality of any law or power.

Get back to me when the Supreme Court rules the President does not have Executive privalege and rules that Congress can interfer in the Executive Branch on any whim they chose to.
 
They most assuaredely ARE Political appointees. They serve at the WHIM of the President. You know it, you just pretend otherwise.

I know what the Constitution and the law says. The President doesn't have the final say on who serves as U.S. Attorneys because Congress has that power. They do not serve at the whim of the President and the Constitution and the law makes that clear.

As for you and Edwards laughable comments on the power of Congress, Once again, Congress can not force the President to do what they want simply by demanding it. THAT is checks and balances. They don't like what he has offered, they have another option, TAKE it to COURT. Failing that the President most surely can make any requirement he chooses for the participation of HIS branch of Government in this matter.[/quote]

There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the President this power but there is in the Constitution and the law that grants the Congress the power to define the terms of Congressional testimony. It is Congress who makes the laws for every department of Government including the Executive Department as the Founding Fathers referred to it. The very fact that there is an office of an U.S. Attorney is because Congress created that office. Also, Congress has the power to do something about this outside of a court. The power to hold officers of the U.S. government or individuals in contempt of Congress and to compel them to answer is a Congressional power. In fact, Congress can have the Sergeant at Arms arrest them, bring them to the Capitol, and lock them in a Senate Office until they testify if that is the only method of holding them accountable to the American people. They don't need the Courts to do so.

If it is so cut and dried, why hasn't there been a petition before a court to settle the matter? That is after all the role of the Courts in our Government.

There is no reason to go to the Courts. This matter is very simple and the Courts have already made it clear that when there is a conflict between the Executive Branch and Congress that they take a hands off policy. They don't want to get in the middle of this right now and Congress is more than happy to allow them not to become involved. It's a war between a retard who thinks of himself as a King and Congress who refuses to allow him to get away with it. I know the best way to settle the matter. SEND THE SERGEANT AT ARMS, ARREST THE FUCKERS, BRING THEM TO THE CONGRESS AND FORCE THEM TO TESTIFY AND IF THE BITCH GEORGIE GETS UPSET HE CAN TAKE IT UP WITH THE COURTS AND THEN HE CAN ARGUE WHY HIS MEN SHOULDN'T BE ARRESTED BY OUR NEIGHBORS BECAUSE HE THE CRAWFORDITE DOESN'T AGREE. :rofl: I suggest you try reading some history because Congress has dealt forcibly with the Executive Branch before and is more than willing to do so again.
 
What are you babbling about? Bush offered to allow the Congress to ask anything ( within the specific scope of the issue) and his aides would be required to answer.

Now if you mean Bush should just allow Congress to go on a fishing expedition about anything and everything, your high.

I watched some of the hearing. In reply to many questions asked, the reply was “executive privilege”. Yet, the questions were relevant to the investigation of the firings. I found the exchange quite funny.
 
Isuggest you reread your Constitution and rather than pick and chose you do so as a whole. The Checks and balances ensure Congress can NOT just make any demand they please of the Executive. It is protected from Congress JUST as Congress is protected from the Executive. And the Courts exist BY the Constitution. The Supreme Court is directly mentioned and empowered in the Constitution. It has been accepted by all 3 branches since 1800 that the Supreme Court will rule on disputes between the Bodies of the Government and the Constitutionality of any law or power.

I suggest you actually read the Constitution instead of picking and choosing like you have done. The Courts have already ruled on this matter and the concept predates the Constitution and is embodied in the Constitution. Congress has the right to force members of the Executive department to testify and even to have the Sergeant at Arms of the Congress arrest them until they testify. If the Courts attempt to interfere with this matter the Congress can simply tell them to go to hell. You may suggest otherwise but you are nothing but an asshole and a fucking tryant like your friend Georgie from Crawford. I say to all the Crawfordites, that their neighbor had better fucking stop insulting my neighbor in Congress or they are going to watch as he and his buddies get their ass arrested, impeached or worst.

Get back to me when the Supreme Court rules the President does not have Executive privalege and rules that Congress can interfer in the Executive Branch on any whim they chose to.

Get back to me when the Supreme Court rules that the Congress doesn't have the power to force the Executive department to testify before the Congress and that the President can ignore them on any whim because the Courts have already ruled that Congress has the power to force members of the Executive Branch to testify before Congress. That is a given and you may not like it but it remains true that Congress has the power to personally arrest members of the Executive Branch and jail them without going through the courts and can use the Capitol Police and Sergeant at Arms to do so.
 
I watched some of the hearing. In reply to many questions asked, the reply was “executive privilege”. Yet, the questions were relevant to the investigation of the firings. I found the exchange quite funny.

Because Bush ordered them not to respond. Despite the ignorance of Edwards and the lying of Jillian, the President most surely has the power to control what and who in his Segment of the Government talks to Congress on matters not specifically spelled out in law. And despite edwards little Tirade the US Prosecutors are POLITICAL appointments, and the ONLY role Congress has in them is agreeing to their hiring, they have no say and no power on when or why the President choses to fire them. As any other Political appointment, they serve at the whim of the President. He can fire them any time he wants for any reason he wants, to include NO reason.

Congress wants to talk to the Executive branch? It has to deal with the President. He has stated more than once he will order his people to tell Congress anything they want, as soon as the Congress agrees not to put them under oath.

We have already been through several threads where the power is shown to exists and has since George Washington was President. I do not recall howls from the left when Clinton Invoked the Power. Nor do I recall any complaints when Clinton fired EVERY single Prosecutor including one within 30 days of bringing charges in a case effecting the democratic party.
 
I watched some of the hearing. In reply to many questions asked, the reply was “executive privilege”. Yet, the questions were relevant to the investigation of the firings. I found the exchange quite funny.

Executive privelige was originally asserted as a way to protect the American people from harm based on the President being forced to release information that was harmful to the American people in general. It was never to protect the President or to prevent the Congress from getting answers. That is how it currently stands even though Bush has tried to assert that it allows him to prevent officers of the U.S. Government and members of the Executive from testifying before Congress unless he gets to set the terms. This is simply not correct and Congress has already seriously considered using the inherent contempt against the Executive and they don't need to go through the Courts or the Executive to do so. It is the concept of separation of powers and checks and balances at work. On this issue the Congress checks the Executive and the Courts. :eusa_dance: Bush will cry when Harriet is jailed in a Senate office. :razz:
 
Executive privelige was originally asserted as a way to protect the American people from harm based on the President being forced to release information that was harmful to the American people in general. It was never to protect the President or to prevent the Congress from getting answers. That is how it currently stands even though Bush has tried to assert that it allows him to prevent officers of the U.S. Government and members of the Executive from testifying before Congress unless he gets to set the terms. This is simply not correct and Congress has already seriously considered using the inherent contempt against the Executive and they don't need to go through the Courts or the Executive to do so. It is the concept of separation of powers and checks and balances at work. On this issue the Congress checks the Executive and the Courts. :eusa_dance: Bush will cry when Harriet is jailed in a Senate office. :razz:

Yes we are to believe Edwards that Only Congress has checks and the Executive has none, sure thing. Once again for the truly slow, the Courts are the ONLY place Congress can force the President to do what they want when it is NOT covered by an existing law, and there IS a reason Congress won't go to the Courts, they know they might lose and lose big.
 
Because Bush ordered them not to respond. Despite the ignorance of Edwards and the lying of Jillian, the President most surely has the power to control what and who in his Segment of the Government talks to Congress on matters not specifically spelled out in law. And despite edwards little Tirade the US Prosecutors are POLITICAL appointments, and the ONLY role Congress has in them is agreeing to their hiring, they have no say and no power on when or why the President choses to fire them. As any other Political appointment, they serve at the whim of the President. He can fire them any time he wants for any reason he wants, to include NO reason.

Despite your ignorance and little tirade U.S. Attorneys do not serve at the whim of the President. The Constitution makes it clear that Congress has the power to remove officers of the United States. You may not realize it but the entire Justice Department is a creation of a Congress. The ability of the President to remove a U.S. Attorney is spelled out in statute and is a grant of Congressional authority and not an authority inherent in the President as opposed to the inherent power of Congress to hold people in contempt.

Congress wants to talk to the Executive branch? It has to deal with the President. He has stated more than once he will order his people to tell Congress anything they want, as soon as the Congress agrees not to put them under oath.

No it doesn't because Congress has to power of inherent contempt which means they don't need to talk to him and if he continues to behave like he does they will simply send the Sergeant at Arms of the Congress to arrest those who refuse to testify for contempt of Congress. Congress will not agree to any such thing instead they will more likely just arrest those who are in contempt of Congress and there is nothing the Courts or the President can do to stop them unless he wants to invade the Capitol. LMAO... Harriet Meirs might hear a knock on her door only to find the Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police on her doorstep arresting her silly ass for contempt of Congress. If Bush doesn't want his friends arrested than he had better start realizing that Congress is going to invoke inherent contempt if he continues to invoke executive privelige. :eusa_clap:

We have already been through several threads where the power is shown to exists and has since George Washington was President. I do not recall howls from the left when Clinton Invoked the Power. Nor do I recall any complaints when Clinton fired EVERY single Prosecutor including one within 30 days of bringing charges in a case effecting the democratic party.

Actually, executive privelige didn't exist until Thomas Jefferson was President you ignorant piece of shit. But putting that aside the original intent behind executive privelige was to protect the American people from harm by forcing the President to release information that was harmful to us. It was never intended to protect the President or the Executive Department or to allow them to ignore Congress and refuse to testify before Congress. This power simply doesn't exist except in the minds of retards like you. You and the average guy Georgie Bush are going to cry like little babies when Harriet Meirs and others have their asses arrested and are locked up until they testify before Congress.
 
Yes we are to believe Edwards that Only Congress has checks and the Executive has none, sure thing. Once again for the truly slow, the Courts are the ONLY place Congress can force the President to do what they want when it is NOT covered by an existing law, and there IS a reason Congress won't go to the Courts, they know they might lose and lose big.

I guess you would have us believe you that only the President gets to decide who and when officers of the United States are to testify before Congress and on what conditions, sure thing. :bowdown: Congress has other options outside of the Courts. It is obvious that you do you not quite understand the concept of separation of powers and checks and balances or you would know that Congress doesn't need to go to the courts on this matter. This is a right and constitutional authority that they have and that they do not need to go to the Courts to exercise. To require them to do so would basically grant the Courts to much power and would deprive the Congress of the ability to check the President. You have a twisted belief that the Courts check the President and the Congress and that the President checks the Congress but that the Congress doesn't check the Courts or the President which proves that you are truly a moron and that 100% of the people you vote for are as moronic as you are. No wonder you support the Crawfordite Georgie. :eusa_dance:
 
I guess you would have us believe you that only the President gets to decide who and when officers of the United States are to testify before Congress and on what conditions, sure thing. :bowdown: Congress has other options outside of the Courts. It is obvious that you do you not quite understand the concept of separation of powers and checks and balances or you would know that Congress doesn't need to go to the courts on this matter. This is a right and constitutional authority that they have and that they do not need to go to the Courts to exercise. To require them to do so would basically grant the Courts to much power and would deprive the Congress of the ability to check the President. You have a twisted belief that the Courts check the President and the Congress and that the President checks the Congress but that the Congress doesn't check the Courts or the President which proves that you are truly a moron and that 100% of the people you vote for are as moronic as you are. No wonder you support the Crawfordite Georgie. :eusa_dance:

Sure thing BOZO, email me when Congress does any of the things you CLAIM they can do. And remind me again about that little court case where the Vice President exerted the non existant Executive privelage over who and what was in a meeting committee he had.
 
Despite your ignorance and little tirade U.S. Attorneys do not serve at the whim of the President. The Constitution makes it clear that Congress has the power to remove officers of the United States. You may not realize it but the entire Justice Department is a creation of a Congress. The ability of the President to remove a U.S. Attorney is spelled out in statute and is a grant of Congressional authority and not an authority inherent in the President as opposed to the inherent power of Congress to hold people in contempt.

WRONG....
United States Attorneys Mission Statement

The United States Attorneys serve as the nation's principal litigators under the direction of the Attorney General. There are 93 United States Attorneys stationed throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. United States Attorneys are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of, the President of the United States, with advice and consent of the United States Senate.




No it doesn't because Congress has to power of inherent contempt which means they don't need to talk to him and if he continues to behave like he does they will simply send the Sergeant at Arms of the Congress to arrest those who refuse to testify for contempt of Congress. Congress will not agree to any such thing instead they will more likely just arrest those who are in contempt of Congress and there is nothing the Courts or the President can do to stop them unless he wants to invade the Capitol. LMAO... Harriet Meirs might hear a knock on her door only to find the Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police on her doorstep arresting her silly ass for contempt of Congress. If Bush doesn't want his friends arrested than he had better start realizing that Congress is going to invoke inherent contempt if he continues to invoke executive privelige. :eusa_clap:

WRONG

If either house of Congress decided to pursue a contempt citation, the case would be referred the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., seeking criminal charges. Assuming the current prosecutor, a Republican political appointee, agreed to do that, he would seek an indictment from a grand jury.

If indicted for "refusal of witness to testify or produce papers," the reluctant White House staffers would face a trial. In court, they could raise the defense of executive privilege or claim that what Congress wanted wasn't pertinent to the issue of the prosecutor firings.

The penalty is a misdemeanor, up to a $1000 fine and a year in jail. Anyone convicted could appeal, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Actually, executive privelige didn't exist until Thomas Jefferson was President you ignorant piece of shit. But putting that aside the original intent behind executive privelige was to protect the American people from harm by forcing the President to release information that was harmful to us. It was never intended to protect the President or the Executive Department or to allow them to ignore Congress and refuse to testify before Congress. This power simply doesn't exist except in the minds of retards like you. You and the average guy Georgie Bush are going to cry like little babies when Harriet Meirs and others have their asses arrested and are locked up until they testify before Congress.

-WRONG

A BRIEF HISTORY OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON THROUGH DICK CHENEY
By MICHAEL C. DORF
----The Constitution nowhere expressly mentions executive privilege. Presidents have long claimed, however, that the constitutional principle of separation of powers implies that the Executive Branch has a privilege to resist certain encroachments by Congress and the judiciary, including some requests for information.

For example, in 1796, President Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents relating to the negotiation of the then-recently adopted Jay Treaty with England.
ps. Ike was the first Pres. to use the term exec. privilege
 
What are you babbling about? Bush offered to allow the Congress to ask anything ( within the specific scope of the issue) and his aides would be required to answer.

Now if you mean Bush should just allow Congress to go on a fishing expedition about anything and everything, your high.

This is what I was babbling about:

http://fe4.news.re3.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070802/pl_bloomberg/aokwuck9ma

J. Scott Jennings was the person being questioned. He said that he was bound by Bush's order not to describe internal administration discussions about the dismissals. The 29-year-old aide refused even to say if he was involved in the appointment of U.S. attorneys.

Read the article.
 
Of course they aren't staff members of the President and that is why the Constitution requires them to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The President basically recommends people he thinks are qualified to be U.S. Attorneys and the Congress hires them in behalf of the American people who they work for. They answer to the American people through the Congress. The ability of the President to terminate a U.S. Attorney exists only because Congress enacted a statute that allows the President to exercise a Congressional authority. That he would terminate those who were hired by the American people to do a job for political purposes is unacceptable. The whole idea behind checks and balances is so that those who are closet to the people would have more authority than those more removed. This is why when you read the Constitution you see that Article I bestows more power on Congress than on the President or the Courts. There is not a single power of the President that Congress doesn't also hold in part while there are powers of Congress that the President has no authority over. A simple reading of the Constitution makes this clear. It shows beyond any doubt that the more powerful of the three branches is the Congress and that the power to check them is divided between the Courts, the President and the states and by each other. The reason that there is two branches of Congress is because dividing the most powerful branch checks it but when push comes to shove those who are directly responsible to the American people will win over the President even in the Courts. This is our last hope to stop the monarchist pieces of shit like RetiredGySgt and Georgie Bush.

You're preaching to the choir...

I was putting it into simple terms so he could understand.
 
Ah..no harm in preaching....but he should have at least a rudimentary understanding of the subject.....the AG himself, and all US attys. serve at the discretion of the President... he alone "hires" them, with advice and consent of the Senate.....the AG himself can't fire at US atty....Bush gave them the job and Bush can take that job away...just a Clinton did with the entire 96 man fleet of them .... he gave no reasons..he didn't need one....
As a matter of fact these attys. were hired by him....Its just the same of double standard Repubs. are held to that the Dims routinely get away with....
let the Dims take it to the Courts..they WON'T do it....because they will lose
Clinton himself set the precedent...
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top