On 8/25/06, Gruss wrote: > > > The point you're missing (big time) is that if a President were to > draft a sufficiently vague document requesting approval to use the > military in, say, a "war on terror', which is ill defined he could > then effectively remove the check on his power. He could use fears of > security to do just such a thing. If he did, now he would not only be > able to take the country to war, but define that war as anything he > liked.
Congress controls the purse strings. They could cut off funding for the war anytime. They could force the President to bring the military home. If they felt the President had committed a crime, they could impeach him. There are plenty of checks on his power. It just so happens that we voted for a Republican President and a Republican Congress, and they agree in terms of the big picture on how to fight the War on Terror. No surprise, then, that the President has largely gotten what he has wanted out of Congress. If the Democrats retake one or both houses of Congress, they will hold all sorts of hearings and maybe even try for an impeachment. That's how our government works. > > > The president has not only the power, but the responsibility to > > appoint judges during term in office. > > Again, you miss the point about removing an essential check. If the > President and Congress collude with judges, either formally or > informally, to support a specific ideology, then the judicial check > has effectively been removed. Bullshit. Ideology is not dictatorial power. The President gets to pick his appointees. The Senate can block them; indeed the Senate has blocked some of Bush's appointees. > > It's funny to see people going "Oh no! The president is using the > > powers we gave him by electing him!" > > Then you fail to understand the argument because that's certainly not > what this piece is saying. It's saying that the ability exists to > remove essential checks and balances to protect the people from the > government and that's there's great historical precedent for this. > > The great illusion of some Americans seems to be that if there's been > elections then that must mean nothing bad can happen. Seen Chavez > lately? It's not as if one day there's an election between gov't > tyranny and not! Comparisons with Rome are interesting but inexact. I studied the subject in some detail in college and would be happy to share my thoughts on it with you. The short answer is that Rome was a republic by habit and tradition, but it had no formal written constitution. Its traditions were re-interpreted over many generations, resulting in the growth of the Roman Empire. There was no recognition of co-equal branches of government as exists in the US Constitution; the judiciary had a very limited ability to curtail executive or legislative power. There is a very interesting new book on the subject, The Constitution of the Roman Republic, by Andrew Lintott. -- --------------- Robert Munn www.funkymojo.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:214212 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
