by netgui68, Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 02:45:07 PM EDT
This is from a diary at DKos about the proposed Wall Street Bailout and proposed legal language that we Democrats must make sure does not pass. this is the largest transfer of congressional power to the executive branch ever..this is an extension of the Bush regime's plan to apparantly destroy America the beautiful.
Original Diary is here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/20/
All Credit to the diarist: Larry Madill
Please read and Do something!
by croweb, Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 05:18:16 PM EDT
Elections are thought of as a panacea. Thinking that winning an election is the cure for the ills of the Bush administration misses the core of the problem. The crisis created by the administration is bigger than just the man in office. The administration has placed the office of the presidency in conflict with our system of three separate branches of government.
Expecting the next president to cure the problem is asking the patient to cure himself. When the disease is too much unchecked power, what incentive is there for a president to operate and cut out his or her own power tumor? A power tumor in the presidency is not a threat to the office of the president, but a threat to the other branches of government. The malignancy is on our system of checks and balances, not on the human being occupying the office.
The system can only work properly as long as those in power constantly work to preserve the constitutionally established limits on the power of each branch. In the case of the executive branch, when the limits are disregarded or left unchecked, the system's protection against tyranny is breached.
There is a crisis in the executive branch. The Bush administration has breached our protections against tyranny by taking for itself enormous amounts of governmental power through intentional violations of constitutional and statutory law.
Charlie Savage, of The Boston Globe, won the Pulitzer Prize for his series reporting on the President's claim of authority to disobey the law.
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
by croweb, Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:25:34 PM EST
When I got involved in the '06 election campaigns to help elect Democratic candidates to Congress, no one could have convinced me that once in power a Democratic Party majority would take positions that serve to buttress the Bush administration war policy. Democratic candidates were vigorously voicing opposition to Bush's war and promising to force a change in policy, if only the voters would make ours' the majority party. My own incumbent Democratic Congressman put it something like this: I want to get us out of this national fiasco too, but to effect change in the war policy requires a showing of the peoples' will.
We succeeded in gaining the majority, and we made known our will by winning some elections against tremendous odds. For example, in the primaries, Connecticut Democrats showed that pro Bush war Democratic Senators were not wanted as party candidates, even if they were entrenched incumbents. And in the general election, Virginia voters showed that an incumbent Republican Senator being touted as heir to the Bush legacy would be voted out of office.
Efforts expended by Democrats in party politics were successful in showing that the people wanted out of Bush's calamity. But once in power, my elected party representatives began to orient themselves into positions that reinforce Bush's power and policies.
by sethco, Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 10:18:05 AM EST
I wrote a couple of weeks ago about a new Republican proposal to give Bush a line-item veto. At the time, I had a few major concerns.
First, one man's pork is another man's Department of Education. Giving an executive the power to line-item veto is, as the Supreme Court has said, giving him the power to legislate. What, after all, should keep Bush from using the line-item veto to further erode spending on programs that benefit Americans to make room for more corporate welfare and Republican pork? This is no outrageous claim, but a logical follow-up to bills such as S.1932.
Second, even though this new Republican proposal requires Congress to approve the President's cuts, the idea is based on the good faith of Congress. What if there was a situation in which the executive and legislative branches were controlled by the same party, and the legislature gave up the task of oversight in order to advance the interests of the party? Or, what if the executive and legislative branches were controlled by different parties functioning in a highly partisan environment and either branch used the new rules for partisan rather than good government ends?
It seems that my concerns were not too far off. A new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the new line-item veto proposal does much more than its proponents have been saying.