Make Me
President Bush has decided he will not hand over subpoenaed documents to the Senate regarding the fired federal prosecutors. He is also refusing to allow Harriet Myers and Sara Taylor to testify. So basically, Congress requested something of the President and he just said "no." And that's the end of the story. What are they going to do about it? Keep asking? Our government is not set up to handle an out-of-control power-monger who refuses to abide by the checks and balances the Constitution has established.
One problem I have always had with Bush is that he does not lead by example. What would happen if I decided to say "no" when the government asks me to hand over 1,000 (more) of my hard-earned "documents" every April 15th? There would be punishment for that action. However, the president doesn't feel he should follow the rules. So, if my "leader" doesn't follow the rules, why should I? Why should any American? Should I follow the leader, or be a law-abiding citizen?
This White House has made another interesting anti-Constitution declaration - that the Vice President is not a member of the Executive branch. Do they really think we're that stupid? I mean 1/2 the country did re-elect them after gross failure to protect our country in their first term. Not a bright move, but most of us have at least seen the Constitution. They seem to rely on the idea that if they say it enough, we'll just believe it.
One problem I have always had with Bush is that he does not lead by example. What would happen if I decided to say "no" when the government asks me to hand over 1,000 (more) of my hard-earned "documents" every April 15th? There would be punishment for that action. However, the president doesn't feel he should follow the rules. So, if my "leader" doesn't follow the rules, why should I? Why should any American? Should I follow the leader, or be a law-abiding citizen?
This White House has made another interesting anti-Constitution declaration - that the Vice President is not a member of the Executive branch. Do they really think we're that stupid? I mean 1/2 the country did re-elect them after gross failure to protect our country in their first term. Not a bright move, but most of us have at least seen the Constitution. They seem to rely on the idea that if they say it enough, we'll just believe it.
By terra - 6/28/2007
20 Comments:
I couldn't really care less about the attorney scandal. We need to focus on ending the war. This is just another example, or 2, of how these guys don't care about the Constitution or the country.
The picture is just funny.
Terra you accuse these guys of not caring about the Constitution and then you say you don't care about the AG scandal. The AG is the chief law enforcement officer for the government and a cabinet member. If
the AG is corrupt or incompetent, or busy appointing 100's of third-rate party hacks to vital legal positions, there is in a very real sense, a threat to the Constitution. Connect the dots babe.
yeah sweetcheeks
Terra, that picture looks like its from a gay convention
I agree with Menck...the AG not politically twisting enforcment of the law is a huge threat to our nation's foundations.
This all gets back to the corrupt decay at the root of most of our nations troubles - incompetence, fraud, malfeasence, political cronyism......shitty accounting...you name it....NO integrity of Governing
I double negatived...should read:
..."the AG politically twisting enforcment of the law..."
You're right. I should have said, I care more about bringing our troops home and preventing future wars. I know it's illegal to fire the attorneys for political reasons, but I'm not surprised that they did it. Is anyone else?
I'm frustrated/surprised that our system wasn't prepared for these guys. It seems the framers of the consitutiton just assumed that the President and Congress would respect each other as equal branches. So, no provision was made for enforcement when they don't.
Babe?
You guys sound like you're debating a bill on the House floor--getting nowhere.
AG is seriously more important than IW. The USC is too fragile a document to be FW. The IW is a vital part of the WOT. With rampant terrorists running about, the USC will RIP and we will be SOL.
Where 'executive privilege' is laid out in the constitution?
Trick question!
It doesn't exist.
Herse my take on the framers intent:
I think they set it up to never function fully: I mean that no branch could effectively gain complete control. Embedded within that design are \mechanisms that preclude violent insurection - such as the public being pissed enough to vote out the whole house of reps.
But they mey have goofed thinking that there woulkd be a underlying honor , restraint/linits type of thing. Bush and company has illustrated that there is NO linit to incompetency and fraud and power lust (short of violent coup).
Tom "pinwheel" Jefferson is a rollin in his grave.....
But ...Hark:::::::the pendulum will swing back (I pray)
Terra, the "babe' thing,,,maybe its sorta like "babe" Ruth??????
I love how liberals despise Bush's power grab on constitutional grounds, but never criticize rooselvelt for much worse abuses. He is held on a pedestal by the left, why?? Where are the left-wing FDR apologists?
Concerning my above post:
I love it when so many on the left despise any increase in the powers of the executive branch. I would really like to see some consistency.
Jeff, What power grab are you referring to? Bush is getting rid of dissenters. FDR tried to put his supporters on the Supreme Court, which Bush has also done.
I found FDR's power grabs surprising, but from what I've heard, the country wanted that kind of leadership at the time. Conservatives just don't like FDR creating social programs, but the country was in turmoil. Bush is creating the turmoil!
Firing people for political reasons may be considered expanding executive powers. But, when they refuse to turn over subpoenaed documents to Congress, that is overstepping the bounds as they are showing ultimate disrespect for Congress and the constitution that set up these checks on power.
Jeff, because FDR needs NO apologists.
FDR did what was necessary for the Nation.
Bush does what is demanded by his donors
And: FDR is "held on a pedestal", as you say, by many who are NOT on the left.
The only ones who truly hated him were those who were forced to share their selfish riches with the poor in times of dire national and world crises..
Too Fuckin Bad for them - HUH! Pooor...poor bastards!
Cmon, Jeff...its absurd to even breath W's name in the same sentence with FDR. W will go down in history with Franklin Pierce or less. Most likely, historians will rate him the most destructive to the Nation
Check this out:
Rankings of US Presidents
Whatever the merits of FDR - what the fuck does he have to do with what is going on now? Lets have an argument about Grover Cleavland's presidency, its about just as relevant.
Good point, Tim!
True Tim, Now learn to spell Cleveland & did you know that William Howard Taft was a portly fatty sumbitch?
We might as well save our breath about the current worthless pres. freakshow too
& a great big chocolate Laissez-faire bunny wabbitt for Jeff
I love arguing with jeff - it like playing ping pong with ball bearings (Timken, made in USA)
Jeff started the FDR thread....Nya, nya, nyanya NYA
Lets talk about LBJ now - he had a "heavy heart" ya know?
Post a Comment
<< Home