Right on, Robert. I was about to say something similar but in only a
few sentences. You've said it better than I could have. The system is
working, exactly as designed.
Chuck Norcutt
Robert Burnette wrote:
> Speaking of flabbergasted ... I'm flabbergasted that so many
> Americans can't seem to understand our constitutional setup of
> Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches. The President
> (Executive branch) does not enact legislation. Congress (Legislative
> branch) enacts legislation and the President may either sign it (make
> it official) or veto it. If he vetoes legislation, congress may
> override the veto with enough votes. If it is determined to be
> unconstitutional, the Supreme Court (Judicial branch) may strike it
> down. Then Congress may either pass an amended version (that meets
> constitutional requirements) for the President's signature or let it
> die. In this manner, Congress may "override" certain Supreme Court
> decisions. This is supposed to create a system of checks and balances
> lest any one branch of government get out of hand, so to speak.
>
> It is absurd to blame the President for congressional short-comings.
> He can suggest, attempt to obtain support for legislation, but he
> can't enact laws, except by the use of Executive Orders which are
> reserved for special needs and can be, but seldom are, negated by the
> Supreme Court (Judicial branch). All major legislation is the
> responsibility of Congress (House and Senate). Let's assign the blame
> where it belongs ... to Congress. I am seriously tired of people
> blaming the President (any of our presidents) for things he/they do
> not and cannot control.
>
> The President didn't start the Iraq War. Congress did. He isn't
> keeping us there. Congress is.
>
> The President isn't responsible for the energy crisis. Congress is
> (for not having developed a comprehensive energy plan to deal with
> this crisis foreseen years ago).
>
> The President isn't responsible for the health insurance crisis.
> Congress is (for not recognizing the problem and devising a way to
> deal with it years ago).
>
> The President isn't responsible for global warming(?) either. There
> are reputable scientists on both sides of this issue. (No argument,
> just stating a fact.) If it is a reality, the industrialized nations
> of the world are jointly responsible.
>
> I could go on and on, but you get the picture. It's not the
> President's fault.
>
> And while we're assigning blame, let's not forget the usurping of
> Legislature powers by an activist Supreme Court that increasingly
> "enacts" legislation by judicial decree, a process forbidden by the
> Constitution.
>
> For what it's worth, disgruntled folk blaming everything on
> Republican Congressional and Presidential "inadequacies" elected a
> Democrat majority to replace them in Congress. What have the
> Democrats done during their two year reign except complain about the
> Republicans and the President? Finger-pointing and name-calling seems
> to have become petulant substitutes for decisive and progressive
> action.
>
> Personally, I prefer to vote for whomever I think is best qualified,
> not a party line. At age 74 ... granted a prime curmudgeon age ... I
> have neither patience nor sympathy for those who still blindly pin
> their hopes to party lines and false promises.
>
> I could continue the rant, but I won't. ;o) Sorry for slipping into
> a "forbidden" topic, but the curmudgeon in me was screaming for an
> opportunity to respond to this nonsensical view of the presidency.
>
> Robert
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: Larry <halpert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>>> But if you want to blame it on Bush, go ahead.
>
>> Didn't blame the flood on Bush. What I actually said was
>> specifically that it is not whether what could have been done in
>> the past eight years would have had any effect. As far as Bush
>> goes, he just spearpoints the easy assumptions that the occurance
>> of more and more global weather catastrophes can just be
>> coincidences, and mostly politics. There are better ways than
>> defending the current president's ignorance to get another
>> republican into the presidency to make SURE there's no universal
>> healthcare, or to make sure Warren Buffett stays flabbergasted that
>> his taxes are lower than his maid's. If you're against universal
>> healthcare, and are one whose job doesn't throw full healthcare
>> insurance at you, or you can't afford the nonsensical premiums -
>> let me know what you think of universal healthcare when you need a
>> doctor, and none of them want you. At least some countries know
>> that it has nothing to do with making the right choices in life.
>>
>> Of course, he could spend his presidency helping perpetuate the
>> ignorance that it is mostly politics. He obviously can't have any
>> other effect, but as far as the presidency goes its bad enough, and
>> just one more sickening thing about him.
>
>
> ============================================== List usage info:
> http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies:
> olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version:
> 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.0/1509 - Release Date: 6/19/2008 8:00
> AM
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|