Text 20850, 102 rader
Skriven 2008-09-15 10:41:08 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
  Kommentar till text 20780 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Ärende: Things Change         1/
================================
Hello Roy,

>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.

RW>Show us the law that gives the POTUS the power to remain in office.

The president does not need a law to remain in power.

RW>Not something you make up, but the real thing taken from the section
RW>of US law that covers it.

The president has the Constitutional right to remain in power
indefinitely, if he so choses.

>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.

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

Perhaps you should read it some time.

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

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

The president can nominate, the Senate having the power to confirm (or
to reject).  However, there are certain ways in which the president can
get around those constraints.

RW>Once appointed and approved, they are under no obligation to support
RW>the POTUS or his views.

They serve at the pleasure of the president.  IOW, the president can
fire anybody he/she so chooses, with or without reason.  And there is
nothing anybody else can do about it.

RW>They are, however, empowered to enforce the laws passed by the
RW>legislative branch of government, without prejudice.

There is nothing obligating a president to enforce each and every
law, the president being free to enforce whatever laws he/she wants.
The president can also rule by decree, without the need for consent
of the Senate or any other legislative body.

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

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

The president can choose to ignore the law by refusing to enforce it.

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

RW>But only as far as the legislative branch allows.

The judicial and legislative branches are separate, meaning neither
branch can tell the other what to do or what not to do.

RW>i.e. the legislative branch of government may take an interpretation
RW>and change it by passing yet more legislation.

And the judicial branch can strike it down as being unconstitutional.

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

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

Only in extreme cases, where the president and both houses of congress
are of the same party, with each house having a two-thirds majority,
along with a majority of supreme court justices having been appointed
by a president of the same party.  That would make this country a
one-party state, not much different than the former Soviet Union.
For five of the past seven years, this country was a lite version of
the former Soviet Union. with the same party being in control of the
White House, both houses of Congress, and a majority of the USSC.

>>> Continued to next message

 * SLMR 2.1a * Christopher Walken for President.

--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: Xaragmata / Adelaide SA telnet://xaragmata.thebbs.org (3:800/432)