mimo2005

House passes bill to protect journalists, Bush admin, warning that the bill would encourage leaks of classified information (or truth), threatened a veto.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1003659071

bry623

It makes sense consitutionally

Wozer

let's get one thing straight here...I took my last course in American history over 20 years ago...but tell me this, how the **** can Bush Veto something that passed with that vote count???? isn't there the ability for a re-vote and if its above 66% then the veto is overridden????

Drew1369

They wont have vote too override the veto

yustr

He vetoed exactly zero bill his first 5+ years - clue: the Republicans were in charge of the House. Now, he'll whip out the veto pen at the slightest provocation.

Nik00117

He may be hopping that not all 2/3s of the poeple who voted for it support it. Prob would only take 1-2 poeple to change their minds.

And this is why the party system is bad in american plotcies. Had we not had those parties he just might agree with the bill but nope hes going at it for his own party and not the american public.

EnglishPaul

I would say that this is why a presidential system is a bit silly.
Why would you hand so much power to one man, and then decide to limit his term in office?
I don't think I will ever understand American politics!

yustr

There's 300 million of us who agree...

Nik00117

You mean 299,999,999 that agree because I don't.

Every country needs a head figure, a figure with enough power to get the job done. By limiting his term you limit his possibilities of becoming corrupt at the same time allowing him enough time to do good.

EnglishPaul

So 3 million people think I will never understand the American political system. I didn't even know 3 million people knew me.

Nik, in no way do I detract from the need for an arbiter who has final say. But there is a world of difference between ensuring that a decision is made based on consensus, and that of being all powerful.
If democracy is to be democratic then elected leaders have to represent the voters. I can't imagine that one man is a better representation of the will of the many than many elected officials would be.
I think democracy in Britain is a flawed representation of the people, and I hate the way Tony Blair moved towards a more presidential system. So I certainly don't see how the American system works. It's as if you elect a king for a season, and then arbitrarily end the season whether they have done good or bad.

DumberDrummer

Its a balance of stability (which you need for any kind of actual leadership) and preventative measures.

Imagine a president that could be replaced at will... either we would spend all our time voting on who should be leader for the week and never get anything done, or we let one person run the country for 20 years, and we never get a chance to say "we don't like this man anymore get him out of there"

Is it a perfect system? No, and it probably never will be. I mean, we're seeing what can happen with 8 years of one president, imagine if Bush was allowed to reign for 20 years.... it could be a lot worse.

If there was one thing the founding fathers understood, it was the fickle nature of the people and the corruptness of those who would seek power.

EnglishPaul

And that is why our Queen has few actual powers!

One person does not seem to me to be the best way to administer the wishes of the people.
Leadership may propose the agenda, inspire the direction and settle the final decision; but if there is no teamwork, then there is a stunted team, and so what is he really leading?

Internetdude99

Firstly, he does not administer the wishes of the people. He is the one leading the people's wish makers. In other words, he's administrating who the people elect as their leaders. A king of kings.

Hence every Tom, Dick, and Harry senator, congressmen, and representative.

Furthermore...

Where does all this Bush bashing come from? Our President is one of the best (if not THE) presidents this country has ever seen. Ever. I estimate 10 years from now, perhaps less, people will be singing his praises.

I'm talking statues (bronze), movies, books, etc.

Seriously.

DumberDrummer

That's why american politics rests upon the tripod of the Judicial (common law), Executive (Presidential), and the Legislative.

Now granted, the executive leg has gotten a little long as of late, but its not as though we elect one person to rule us completely. Its not like the people have no input on whats going on, its just that they do so indirectly by electing new congresscritters every so often and a new president every 4 years. There are limitations on what he can do (though they are disappearing faster). There's only so much I can say about the american system before I have to say that you should go read a book or two as it seems you don't truly understand how it works.

And internet99, I feel truly sorry for you if you actually think we are going to be making any bronze statues of Bush, and if they are, I'm gonna pull them down. We don't need to put a horrible twisted man who condones torture and the perversion of american rights on a pedestal.

Internetdude99

Spoken like a true unbeliever...

Of America.

DumberDrummer

yeah, either you are seriously deluded, or you a troll. I'm opting for troll.

Anyway, back on topic.

Internetdude99

No troll. I'm a realist.

What Bush (By 'Bush' I mean the scapegoat for one party and the quiet warrior of another) is saying is that he'll do whatever he has to, while he is in power, to keep this country safe.

Mr. Lincoln has slavery, Mr. Roosevelt has the depression, Mr. Bush has terrorism.

They were all good at one thing, ending problems.

yustr

A good place to start in our understanding of governance in America is to read the Constitution ( HERE). It takes all of about 15 minutes but it says volumes.

It's important to read because unlike most people's belief, our elected officials are not there to protect us - they're they to protect the Constitution. The authors firmly believed that if they do that, our form of government will survive and flourish. So much so that they wrote an oath of office for the President and Congress that says only that!

Some common misconceptions:

The President is not Commander in Chief from day one. If you read Article II Section 2 it is clear that he becomes CiC only when "called into the actual service of the United States". Meaning when we go to War as declared only by Congress (Article 1 Section 8). Otherwise it is for Congress to raise, maintain and "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces".

He swears that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." The President does not have the authority to enforce only part of a law (e.g. Bush's hundreds of "signing statements"). If he feels a law is unjust or unconstitutional he has the authority and responsibility to veto it and send it back to Congress for reconsideration.

He can enter into treaties - with the consent of Congress - but he cannot ignore or change those already entered into (e.g. nuclear weapons non-proliferation, Geneva conventions).

Congress likewise is sworn only to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies - the words "foreign and domestic" were added to the oath in backlash to the McCarthy fiasco of the 1950's. They too have failed in their only duty.

My view is that both the President and Congress need to read that great document and think long and hard about what it is they're supposed to be doing...

Lincoln said our father gave us a "government of the people, by the people, for the people". "of the people" means that we have no ruling class or monarchy or - now oligarchy. "by the people" means that those elected answer to those who elected them - not the other way around. And "for the people" refers to all of the people not to a select few. For the whole speech - all 3 minutes of it - see HERE:


Sadly, the cynic in me thinks this is a better definition of our system:
Get elected. Once elected - stay elected.

Internetdude99

What about amendments?

mimo2005

It is Universal , Robert .
It works like that Where ever you go , washington,Caracas or casablanca , same problems .