easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,094
- 2,645
The increased use of executive orders and other presidential directives is a fundamental problem in modern-day America. The Constitution does not give one individual an "executive pen" enabling that individual to single-handedly write his preferred policy into law. Despite this lack of constitutional authority, presidential directives have been increasingly used-both by Republicans and Democrats3 o promulgate laws and to support public policy initiatives in a manner that circumvents the proper lawmaking body, the United States Congress. It would be foolhardy to ignore the danger inherent in this situation, simply because one might like the individual currently holding the presidential pen. 4 It would be hypocritical, as well as dangerous, to seek change when a president from the opposing political party is in power, but to ignore the problem once a president from one's own party has been elected.5
No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty .... The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
The Founding Fathers created the 'Separation of Powers' as a Checks-and-Balances to prevent WILLFUL TYRANNY or UNINTENDED damage to the nation caused by 1 individual attempting to rule by edict...especially when tha t1 person might be 'compromised' physically, emotionally, or mentally.
Also, at what point should a politician demonstrating growing mental incompetence / struggle be allowed to hold chairmanships of Committees / positions of great power or even be allowed to remain in office?
Diane Feinstein comes to immediate mind. Before the Democrats' 2nd Impeachment attempt against President Trump fellow Democrats questioned Feinstein's mental competence and talked publicly about asking her to step down form her Chairmanship.
What, if any, laws / regs / rules cover the question of at what point a politicians' ability to continue serving in office? Should it be left up to them?
www.politico.com
No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty .... The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
The Founding Fathers created the 'Separation of Powers' as a Checks-and-Balances to prevent WILLFUL TYRANNY or UNINTENDED damage to the nation caused by 1 individual attempting to rule by edict...especially when tha t1 person might be 'compromised' physically, emotionally, or mentally.
Also, at what point should a politician demonstrating growing mental incompetence / struggle be allowed to hold chairmanships of Committees / positions of great power or even be allowed to remain in office?
Diane Feinstein comes to immediate mind. Before the Democrats' 2nd Impeachment attempt against President Trump fellow Democrats questioned Feinstein's mental competence and talked publicly about asking her to step down form her Chairmanship.
What, if any, laws / regs / rules cover the question of at what point a politicians' ability to continue serving in office? Should it be left up to them?
Dianne Feinstein to step down as top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary panel
The 87-year-old was criticized for not being aggressive enough in Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings.
www.politico.com
