- Joined
- May 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,671
- Reaction score
- 535
- Location
- OC California
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
How is this the case when say a bill fails to pass the Legislature, so the President invokes an Executive Order in order to get the exact same thing to happen?
Exactly, that is a dictatorship in disguise.
Fine, there's nothing wrong with forming groups. But when the groups start interfering in the voting process and compromising it, that is a major problem with the integrity of the vote. Look at what the republicans did last time. They acted like children and exposed themselves as having no integrity. The MSM ignored it. Only the people who were interested enough to watch videos of the primaries as they were posted by people who were there, got to see what really happened. People had to secretly video the events because video was strictly prohibited, then they would post them when they got home - and by the next day or so they would disappear from youtube and I wouldn't be able to find them again. They said that Ron Paul delegates had to vote for Romney, made new rules up on the spot, ignored old rules if to do so would be in Romney's favor... you can't tell me that having "parties" does not affect the integrity of the voting process.
This would be comical if i didn't feel so bad for you...
That is what the groups will do. They will all oppose what they believe is counterproductive to their goals. If you want to avoid this have three parties.
NO PARTIES. Just people running for the office of president. Just names on the ballot.
WITH PARTIES: influence and imposing of wills - and rules telling voters how and who they can vote for
WITHOUT PARTIES: a clean straight untainted vote
Come on, it's not that complicated of a thing to see.
The argument I'm making is that people will naturally form into parties themselves, you can't stop it unless you ban them. What would improve it is to have democratic reform laws which would change how conscious voting works and setting restriction on what parties have control over. For example the Canadian parliament now has a session in the house that allows backbench MPs to say what they want without fear of party backlash.
I didn't dodge anything but I'm not going to chase your ghosts, either. I suggest you dial 555-2368.You dodged the issue again. Illegal immigrants? Ill be concerned about illegal immigrants as soon as we have a government that isn't mimicking the footsteps of 1938 Nazi Germany.
So, in your opinion, it's solidly checked and balanced? There's no potential for too much freedom of discretion?
How is this the case when say a bill fails to pass the Legislature, so the President invokes an Executive Order in order to get the exact same thing to happen?
If Congress feels that the President is overreaching his powers the House can always vote to impeach him so that he can be tried in the Senate.
Because Congress can pass unconstitutional legislation and the President can issue executive orders to counter it. The President can also issue executive orders to ensure that the Constitution is carried out.
No, if Congress passes Unconstitutional legislation, the Supreme Court knocks it out. That is outside the jurisdiction of the President.
He may also issue executive orders prohibiting executive agencies from following those laws. That's the President's check against Congress.
No, the President's check is to veto laws that Congress attempts to pass that he feels are not Constitutional. He does not have the right to retroactively strike down laws that were passed before he became President. That is the job of the Supreme Court.
I didn't dodge anything but I'm not going to chase your ghosts, either. I suggest you dial 555-2368.
After the circus of the Repub primaries/caucuses where they made up and broke rules as they went to serve Romney, I was shocked that the federal government didn't step in and disqualify Romney or put the GOP back in its place. That they didn't, was a major blow to the integrity of our voting process. Repub officials maintained that they are a private "club" and that they can follow, ignore, or change the rules as they see fit. This is not true at all, however, because the federal government provides them with funding with which to run these caucuses.
Kind of funny when you consider that in one caucus where there were mostly Paul supporters, the outnumbered Romney constituents who ran the caucus, quickly appointed delegates for Romney and then closed the meeting amid shouts of objection, demands for points of order, and a vote count, then told all the Paul supporters that if they wanted to continue the caucus they needed to pay the rent and insurance for the building. They never had to answer for this behavior and I just think that's crazy. IT'S A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. How did they get away with this?
Again, I ask, why did the Republican party not suffer consequences outside of losing the election? Doesn't anybody, after having seen the display of what dirty cheaters they are, look differently upon the party? Or is it because they did it to Ron Paul and nobody likes Ron Paul so that makes it okay?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?