Text 20879, 160 rader
Skriven 2008-09-15 12:46:56 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 20850 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
Ärende: Things Change         1/
================================
15 Sep 08 10:41, Lee Lofaso wrote to Roy Witt:

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

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

And yet, there is a law that says he can't remain in power.

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

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

Wrong.

 >> 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.

 LL> Perhaps you should read it some time.

Apparently you haven't.

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

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

 LL> The president can nominate,

Change can to will.

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

Yeah, when the Senate is not in session, he may make an temp appointment.
That will last until the Senate returns to session.

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

 LL> They serve at the pleasure of the president.

Wrong. They're under the supervision of the USAG. The AG is appointed by
the President, but is confirmed by the Senate. The AG is under no
obligation to abide the President.

 LL> IOW, the president can fire anybody he/she so chooses, with or
 LL> without reason.

Wrong again. Only those within his cabinent are under his power to hire
and fire.

 LL>  And there is nothing anybody else can do about it.

Wrong again.

[judicial powers]

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

 LL> There is nothing obligating a president to enforce each and every
 LL> law,

We're talking about the judicial branch now, not the President.

 LL> the president being free to enforce whatever laws he/she wants.
 LL> The president can also rule by decree, without the need for consent
 LL> of the Senate or any other legislative body.

Wrong.

 >> 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
 RW>> who.

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

He can't enforce a law that hasn't been passed and signed by himself.
Neither can he ignore a law that has the same fate. He is obligated to
uphold the law, whether he likes it or not.

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

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

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

The legislative branch authors and passes legislation that the judicial
branch must uphold, if it is found to be Constitutional.

i.e. the legislative branch does tell the judicial branch what to do.

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

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

And the legislative branch can reiniciate it to read as Constitutional and
the judicial branch will then enforce it.

 >> 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
 RW>> into law much easier.

 LL> Only in extreme cases, where the president and both houses of
 LL> congress are of the same party, with each house having a two-thirds
 LL> majority, along with a majority of supreme court justices having been
 LL> appointed by a president of the same party.

Wrong. For instance, the 107th Congress, where the House was based on the
Twenty-first Census of the United States in 1990. Both chambers had a
Republican majority until June 6, 2001.

 LL> That would make this country a one-party state,

Not really. It would make it a one party majority, which is the way it has
always been.

 LL>  not much different than the former Soviet Union.

How so?

 LL> For five of the past seven years, this country was a lite version of
 LL> the former Soviet Union. with the same party being in control of the
 LL> White House, both houses of Congress, and a majority of the USSC.

Really? How do you figure that?

For the past 7 years, a majority of the Congress has had it's turn of
both parties being in the majority about equal in time.

In 2003, the Senate had a different party majority than the party in the
WH and both chambers have had a different party majority since 2006, than
the WH.

                R\%/itt



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