Activist President?

[CSpindizzy]

While accusing the Judiciary of being activist, it seems the Executive has become activist itself in selecting only the laws it wishes to enforce while superceding others it chooses are unconstitutional. This breaks all sorts of constitutional grounds. First of all, the Legislative body writes laws and the Executive signs and executes the laws. There are no constitutional grounds for the Executive to only enforce certain ones. Second of all, it is NOT the Executive's place to interpret the laws and decide which ones are legal and constitutional and which ones are not. That is the responsibility of the Judicial Branch. It seems the Chief Executive has become the Chief of all branches by setting his own laws and interpreting which ones are deemed worthy of enforcing.

Read this article....a good reference for Bush superceding his power and neutering the government and the Constitution.

Bush Ignores Laws He Inks

 

[GAVol]

Presidents have been doing this for 150 years. Granted, Bush has done it a lot, but still, this is a common practice.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Considering these all have to do with much more crucial issues than the ones as you say have been done over the past 150 years, I'd say someone needs to check this power. And just because a President does this doesn't make it right. And there is also a difference between enforcing the ones you can due to manpower limitations and ones you have the means but choose not to because it conflicts with your own agenda.

 

[GAVol]

Considering these all have to do with much more crucial issues than the ones as you say have been done over the past 150 years, I'd say someone needs to check this power.

Are they really more crucial issues, or do they just seem more critical because they are happening today? I'm really on the fence on this one. The questioning of Executive powers is very legitimate, but the main reason this is even being brought up is that some Senators have their nose out of joint.

 

[OrangeSquare]

And the ball for Impeachment Preceedings IF they win control begins rolling.....

Interesting CSpindizzy, you're liberal and have "Spin" in your name. LOL

Just kiddin with ya man.

 

[utvolpj]

And the ball for Impeachment Preceedings IF they win control begins rolling.....

Great, another wasted 2 years in Congress what a shocker. It won't happen and will be a huge waste of our money just like Clinton (and I'm no fan of his). Maybe they can tackle some real issues like immigration or tax reform before grandstanding but I doubt it.

 

[CSpindizzy]

And the ball for Impeachment Preceedings IF they win control begins rolling.....

Interesting CSpindizzy, you're liberal and have "Spin" in your name. LOL

Just kiddin with ya man.

Not a liberal by far.....just a little too principled on the conservative side. I was card-carrying GOP and worked on numerous campaigns, etc. Just a little fed up with say one thing do another....

 

[vader]

OT: Who is that with Saddam in your avatar, CSpindizzy?

 

[CSpindizzy]

Donald Rumsfeld.....back in the days when we armed and funded him....and helped with the whole chemical warfare issue. We could have said something to him about his use of them but we didn't. We needed him to war with Iran. And just like Noriega, we discard the nuts after we get what we need out of them and then make them out to be the anti-Christ....as if we didn't have anything to do with them to begin with.

 

[therealUT]

I guess CSpin has never faced a situation in which he has had to choose the lesser of two evils.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Not at all. Never have. Never chose to give the means to engage in chemical and biological warfare to another. never passed up the chance to condemn it either. And then never had the chance to then go after the one who did this by saying it was evil and a threat when my fingerprints are all over it as well. Not at all.

 

[volinbham]

With regard to the thread topic:

The executive branch is supposed to be "activist". It sets agendas and leads - activism. When it is said the courts are activists it typically suggests that judges are inserting their own agenda instead of ruling on the existing laws. The executive branch by its very nature is supposed to have an agenda.

Since the late 60's, the power of the executive branch has been waning. The legistative and more recently judicial have been growing in power. This administration is attempting to change that. On the surface there is nothing wrong with that. The relative power shifts throughout time and the system as a whole seeks to balance when one branch goes to far.

The reported issues (signing statements) are "tools" to be used to exercise or defend power of a particular branch. They are constitutional tools. The legislature and judiciary have their own tools and use them as well. Ultimately, the 3 branch system has the mechanisms to ensure no particular branch goes to far. Checks and balances (and branch power) are in flux as a general rule but the overall system works to maintain a pseudo-equilibrium.

For one branch to gain power (or gain back power as in the case of the executive) another branch or both others have to lose power. Is it any surprise then that Congress would see this as a bad thing?

 

[dan4vols]

Mel Brooks said it best....''Its good to be the King.''

 

[cibai]

Actually it's not so much a case of choosing a lesser of two evils, as it is taking a not so powerful lesser evil and creating creating a much greater more powerful one. I wish sometimes that the republicans would take the same stance on international politics that they take on genetics. See how many Nicaraguans you can find who are thankful for US intervention. BTW that picture was taken AFTER the crimes Saddam is now being tried for. Hmmmm.

 

[therealUT]

Actually it's not so much a case of choosing a lesser of two evils, as it is taking a not so powerful lesser evil and creating creating a much greater more powerful one. I wish sometimes that the republicans would take the same stance on international politics that they take on genetics. See how many Nicaraguans you can find who are thankful for US intervention. BTW that picture was taken AFTER the crimes Saddam is now being tried for. Hmmmm.

As opposed to letting Iran, as Khomeni stated, take over Iraq and then wage war with the west? Oh, and that was about the same time the Soviet Union stepped in to help. Maybe we should have tried more diplomacy with the Ayatollah...

 

[CSpindizzy]

Since the late 60's, the power of the executive branch has been waning. The legistative and more recently judicial have been growing in power. This administration is attempting to change that. On the surface there is nothing wrong with that. The relative power shifts throughout time and the system as a whole seeks to balance when one branch goes to far.

And why did the Executive lose power? Because it exceeded its bounds. You had a President who took matters into his own hands, which in itself isn't always bad. But taking power is an addictive action in government. Nixon kept taking and then began using those powers for his own agenda rather than the country's. Nixon exceeded his bounds because no one checked him. And that is my point in holding each branch accountable.

Keep in mind the whole point of the Constitution is to LIMIT the power of GOVERNMENT. If Bush was a strict constructionist like he says, he would abide by that notion and limited and specified powers accorded him in the Constitution. Signing statements are not Constitutional. This is a loose interpretation of powers not even specified in the document itself.

 

[CSpindizzy]

As opposed to letting Iran, as Khomeni stated, take over Iraq and then wage war with the west? Oh, and that was about the same time the Soviet Union stepped in to help. Maybe we should have tried more diplomacy with the Ayatollah...

So building up a power to the point of it using chemical and biological weapons and not holding them accountable for that is fine? And then 20 years later deposing this man for something we actually spurred on is fine as well? And you wonder why the US has a hypocrite label.

You are judged on your policies. That is why many in Iraq do not trust us. We've propped up more governments only to topple them when they've served their purpose. Plus we have forced a democracy on them if that even makes sense. The entire process of government has been crafted and pushed by our government. Even now you see the US telling the duly elected PM of Iraq NOT to allow this amnesty program.

 

[Atreus21]

So building up a power to the point of it using chemical and biological weapons and not holding them accountable for that is fine? And then 20 years later deposing this man for something we actually spurred on is fine as well? And you wonder why the US has a hypocrite label.

You are judged on your policies. That is why many in Iraq do not trust us. We've propped up more governments only to topple them when they've served their purpose. Plus we have forced a democracy on them if that even makes sense. The entire process of government has been crafted and pushed by our government. Even now you see the US telling the duly elected PM of Iraq NOT to allow this amnesty program.

How is any of this Bush's fault? How are the past actions of the nation under a different administration his responsibility? He can only play with the cards he's dealt. He's doing what must be done, regardless of what his predecessors have done.

Suppose the campaign in Iraq succeeds, and they manage to set up a solid, working state. In 20 years, if they go the way of Afganistan and turn into a madmen-ruled theocracy, would you say that it was the United States' fault or their own fault?

 

[cibai]

As opposed to letting Iran, as Khomeni stated, take over Iraq and then wage war with the west? Oh, and that was about the same time the Soviet Union stepped in to help. Maybe we should have tried more diplomacy with the Ayatollah...

Do you really want to get into why Iran was a threat in the first place?

 

[CSpindizzy]

How is any of this Bush's fault? How are the past actions of the nation under a different administration his responsibility? He can only play with the cards he's dealt. He's doing what must be done, regardless of what his predecessors have done.

Suppose the campaign in Iraq succeeds, and they manage to set up a solid, working state. In 20 years, if they go the way of Afganistan and turn into a madmen-ruled theocracy, would you say that it was the United States' fault or their own fault?

His predecessors? Try his VP and Secretary of Defense....try a nice chunk of his whole foreign policy team. they all have a nice history of this pattern of behavior and W seems to be complacent in keeping the tradition alive.

As to your second point, we're talking about the same person over that 20 year span....the same person we condoned his behavior and then turned around in 20 years and said it was a threat to the world.

 

[therealUT]

Do you really want to get into why Iran was a threat in the first place?

Oh, I would love to, as I have spent the better half of my life studying military history. So, feel free to start to new topic which deals exclusively with the Iran-Iraq War, and I will do my best to educate you.

 

[cibai]

Should I start by teaching you how to spell Khomeini? The guy who the CIA put in power by subversively promoting anti-american sentiment, all in fear of communists, and who by the way Khomeini was no friend of either.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Woodrow Wilson is the worst president this country has ever had.

Talk about activist.....geez! :banghead:

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Oh, I would love to, as I have spent the better half of my life studying military history. So, feel free to start to new topic which deals exclusively with the Iran-Iraq War, and I will do my best to educate you.

I would love to get into a military discussion with you, even if that was not directed toward me, care to start a military discussion thread?