Text 20780, 151 rader
Skriven 2008-09-14 11:48:02 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 20731 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
Ärende: Things Change
=====================
13 Sep 08 15:00, Lee Lofaso wrote to Roy Witt:

 >> st>'somewhere in the middle' -- but I want Bush and his cronies out of
 >> st>the Whitehouse.
 >> RC>A certainty, the constitution guarantee's that.
 >> LL>The U.S. Constitution guarantees nothing of the sort.
 RW>> It does.
 LL> Not at all.

Show us the law that gives the POTUS the power to remain in office. Not
something you make up, but the real thing taken from the section of US law
that covers it.

 >> LL>All it says is an individual is limited to being elected to two
 >> LL>consecutive terms.

 RW>> It also says that the Congress shall makes laws:

 LL> The U.S. Constitution is a very simple document, spelling out the
 LL> powers of each branch of government.

Then I wonder why it is that you're so ignorant of what it does and
doesn't cover.

 LL>   The executive branch has the power to enforce he law.

The executive branch does not have that power, except by virtue of the
fact that POTUS appoints, with approval from the Congress, the heads of
certain federal law enforcement entities, such as the AG, FBI and CIA.

Once appointed and approved, they are under no obligation to support the
POTUS or his views. They are, however, empowered to enforce the laws
passed by the legislative branch of government, without prejudice.

 LL> The legislative branch has the power to write the law.

And it may or may not become law without the signature of, you know who.

 LL> The judicial branch has the power to interpret the law.

But only as far as the legislative branch allows. i.e. the legislative
branch of government may take an interpretation and change it by passing
yet more legislation.

 LL>   There has always been a tug of war between the three branches
 LL> of government, especially between the executive and legislative
 LL> branches.

That is only true when there was different parties in the WH and the
Congress. When they are one and the same party, things get passed into law
much easier.

 LL> But in times of national emergency, it is the president who almost
 LL> always gets his way, with the congress going along with almost
 LL> everything the president wants.

Wrong again. Since Harry Truman, the legislative branches and the
President have had a few head butts, but things get done according to
common sense. That is until lately, when the legislative body has done
nothing to help the country.

In fact, the Congress is so disliked by America, their low percentage
numbers (9%) are four times lower than the lame duck, outgoing President's
35%.

 RW>> Federal law provides a variety of powers for the President to use in
 RW>> response to crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances threatening
 RW>> the nation.

 RW>> Moreover, they are not limited to military or war situations.

 LL> A president can declare a national emergency exists, whether it is
 LL> real or imagined, and basically do whatever the hell he wants.

Except remain in office beyond his term limits.

 RW>> Some of these authorities, deriving from the Constitution or
 RW>> statutory law, are continuously available to the President with
 RW>> little or no qualification.

 LL> A president can make something up and people will believe him.

But he will not remain in office beyond his term limits, even if they want
him to stay.

 RW>> Other-statutory delegations from Congress exist on a standby
 RW>> basis and remain dormant until the President formally declares
 RW>> a national emergency.

 LL> And with no real power to oppose whatever a president wants to do,

Legislative bodies make the laws, remember? If they want to, by a 75%
majority, remove him from office by force, if need be.

 LL> virtually all congresscritters go along with the prez in whatever he
 LL> chooses to do.  The Patriot Act comes to mind, and other legislation
 LL> passed just after the events of 9-11.

Thank you for admitting that Congress is the culprit to blame for the
Patriot Act. The President merely went along with it by signing it into
law. He probably did this to help legislation he wanted to pass Congress
that wouldn't have had a chance of doing so, due to liberal partisanship.

 RW>> These delegations or grants of power authorize the President to meet
 RW>> the problems of governing effectively in times of crisis. Under the
 RW>> powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property,
 RW>> organize and control the means of production, seize commodities,
 RW>> assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and
 RW>> control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation
 RW>> of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways,
 RW>> control the lives of United States citizens.

 LL> Thus making the president de facto Dictator.

Wrong again.

 RW>> However, Congress may modify, rescind, or render dormant such
 RW>> delegated emergency authority.

 LL> Not likely to happen, given a national emergency (whether real or
 LL> contrived).

See: 75% majority.

 RW>> Pretty smart, those framers of the Constitution.

 LL> Well, they were lawyers.

I think not.

Jefferson, the main architect of the Constitution, achieved distinction as
among other things, a horticulturist, statesman, architect, archaeologist,
paleontologist, author, inventor and founder of the University of
Virginia, but not as a lawyer.

Ben Franklin, was a leading author and printer, satirist, political
theorist, politician, scientist, inventor, civic activist, statesman and
diplomat, but not a lawyer.

At the time of the Convention on the Constitution, thirteen were
merchants, six were major land speculators, eleven speculated in
securities, twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large
farms, two were small farmers, three were physicians, and one was a
college president, but only Thirty-five were lawyers.

                R\%/itt



--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)