• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Presidential authority

N

NJDevil

Senior member
While watching MtP today, Russert asked Pat Roberts (Sen. Kansas- R) if he feels the president has the power to do whatever he feels is necessary to protect Americans, with Roberts replying yes.

I am quite troubled by this, as I thought our constitution and founding as a nation was supposed to contain balances to authority in all three branches of government. With a viewpoint the same as Roberts', one would support pretty much anything ...

Do you think the president has limits to his authority, and what are those limits?
 
It might bother me if a Supreme Court justice replied yes, but it's Pat Roberts, he doesn't even matter.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
It might bother me if a Supreme Court justice replied yes, but it's Pat Roberts, he doesn't even matter.
Click to expand...

You don't find the view of a senator on this issue important?
 
The Republicans have desperately to find some excuse for not impeaching Bush. Pretending not to see is about their only way. The house and senate under republicans have abdicated their responsibilities.
 
Originally posted by: NJDevil
Originally posted by: ntdz
It might bother me if a Supreme Court justice replied yes, but it's Pat Roberts, he doesn't even matter.
Click to expand...

You don't find the view of a senator on this issue important?
Click to expand...

Hah, I didn't even realize he was a senator. I got Pat Roberts and Pat Robertson confused 🙂
 
Senator Roberts is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. His lack thereof shows why the US Intelligence community is in such bad shape.
 
Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
Senator Roberts is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. His lack thereof shows why the US Intelligence community is in such bad shape.
Click to expand...
I think it's not that he lacks intelligence, it's that he thinks that in the coming dictatorship he will play an important role.
 
I agree with most posters here------what matters is what the constitution says------even if the Congress does pass some blank check resolution----and the Iraq war resolution and the Gulf of Tolkin Resolution during VietNam are just horrible examples of where the President made more of it than the signers intended----but any resolution by congress is an authority congress can't bestow if it conflicts with the US Constitution.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I agree with most posters here------what matters is what the constitution says------even if the Congress does pass some blank check resolution----and the Iraq war resolution and the Gulf of Tolkin Resolution during VietNam are just horrible examples of where the President made more of it than the signers intended----but any resolution by congress is an authority congress can't bestow if it conflicts with the US Constitution.
Click to expand...
The "blank check" issue was also discussed today on Meet the Press.
 
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I agree with most posters here------what matters is what the constitution says------even if the Congress does pass some blank check resolution----and the Iraq war resolution and the Gulf of Tolkin Resolution during VietNam are just horrible examples of where the President made more of it than the signers intended----but any resolution by congress is an authority congress can't bestow if it conflicts with the US Constitution.
Click to expand...
The "blank check" issue was also discussed today on Meet the Press.
Click to expand...

It seems like a lot of people are justifying this because of the actions of past presidents. Someone mentioned how the Supreme Court ruled FDR's policy illegal and he basically ignored it. That is not something we should want to replicate.
 
Is there a real chance that the current administration would try to hold on to power after Dubya's term by "delaying" (euphemism for "abolishing") elections in the name of national emergency (per the War on Terror)?
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Is there a real chance that the current administration would try to hold on to power after Dubya's term by "delaying" (euphemism for "abolishing") elections in the name of national emergency (per the War on Terror)?
Click to expand...

You don't need Bush in power to have the policies implented. Just get other people with the same ideology, goals, and policies in the government.
 
Originally posted by: magomago
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Is there a real chance that the current administration would try to hold on to power after Dubya's term by "delaying" (euphemism for "abolishing") elections in the name of national emergency (per the War on Terror)?
Click to expand...

You don't need Bush in power to have the policies implented. Just get other people with the same ideology, goals, and policies in the government.
Click to expand...

So they would just find a different stooge. This means that unless Diebold is really in their back pocket, there is the possibility of losing power again to the democrats.

If Bush (or the people behind him) is willing to skirt around the Constitution with regard to spying on US citizens by citing necessity, why would he not do the same with the upcoming presidential elections?
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: magomago
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Is there a real chance that the current administration would try to hold on to power after Dubya's term by "delaying" (euphemism for "abolishing") elections in the name of national emergency (per the War on Terror)?
Click to expand...

You don't need Bush in power to have the policies implented. Just get other people with the same ideology, goals, and policies in the government.
Click to expand...

So they would just find a different stooge. This means that unless Diebold is really in their back pocket, there is the possibility of losing power again to the democrats.

If Bush (or the people behind him) is willing to skirt around the Constitution with regard to spying on US citizens by citing necessity, why would he not do the same with the upcoming presidential elections?
Click to expand...

Are you really serious? You need to stop before you make yourself look like a fool with all these stupid conspiracy theories.
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: magomago
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Is there a real chance that the current administration would try to hold on to power after Dubya's term by "delaying" (euphemism for "abolishing") elections in the name of national emergency (per the War on Terror)?
Click to expand...

You don't need Bush in power to have the policies implented. Just get other people with the same ideology, goals, and policies in the government.
Click to expand...

So they would just find a different stooge. This means that unless Diebold is really in their back pocket, there is the possibility of losing power again to the democrats.

If Bush (or the people behind him) is willing to skirt around the Constitution with regard to spying on US citizens by citing necessity, why would he not do the same with the upcoming presidential elections?
Click to expand...

If we were actually to entertaining the notion of this, I think something like that would cause too much of a commotion. Remember, only 51% of registered voted for him, meaning the other 49% would get pissed off you "cancelled" elections. Heck I bet a huge chunk of the 51% that did vote for him would back off if they started to hear words like that.

Just having someone else in government to continue the implentation of similar policies is all that is needed. Remember, the illusion is that we live in a government for the people by the people..."cancelling elections" would ruin that illusion 😉
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: magomago
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Is there a real chance that the current administration would try to hold on to power after Dubya's term by "delaying" (euphemism for "abolishing") elections in the name of national emergency (per the War on Terror)?
Click to expand...

You don't need Bush in power to have the policies implented. Just get other people with the same ideology, goals, and policies in the government.
Click to expand...

So they would just find a different stooge. This means that unless Diebold is really in their back pocket, there is the possibility of losing power again to the democrats.

If Bush (or the people behind him) is willing to skirt around the Constitution with regard to spying on US citizens by citing necessity, why would he not do the same with the upcoming presidential elections?
Click to expand...

Are you really serious? You need to stop before you make yourself look like a fool with all these stupid conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Heh.. It's just hypothetical idle speculation, not any conspiracy theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top