Careful Robert, keep this up and we may bestow upon you the Walt Wayman
mantle of Chief Curmugeon. ;^)
Charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Robert Burnette
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:42 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] [way OT] Re: How high's the water/presidential rant
Speaking of flabbergasted ... I'm flabbergasted that so many Americans can't
seem to understand our constitutional setup of Legislative, Executive and
Judicial branches. The President (Executive branch) does not enact legislation.
Congress (Legislative branch) enacts legislation and the President may either
sign it (make it official) or veto it. If he vetoes legislation, congress may
override the veto with enough votes. If it is determined to be
unconstitutional, the Supreme Court (Judicial branch) may strike it down. Then
Congress may either pass an amended version (that meets constitutional
requirements) for the President's signature or let it die. In this manner,
Congress may "override" certain Supreme Court decisions. This is supposed to
create a system of checks and balances lest any one branch of government get
out of hand, so to speak.
It is absurd to blame the President for congressional short-comings. He can
suggest, attempt to obtain support for legislation, but he can't enact laws,
except by the use of Executive Orders which are reserved for special needs and
can be, but seldom are, negated by the Supreme Court (Judicial branch). All
major legislation is the responsibility of Congress (House and Senate). Let's
assign the blame where it belongs ... to Congress. I am seriously tired of
people blaming the President (any of our presidents) for things he/they do not
and cannot control.
The President didn't start the Iraq War. Congress did. He isn't keeping us
there. Congress is.
The President isn't responsible for the energy crisis. Congress is (for not
having developed a comprehensive energy plan to deal with this crisis foreseen
years ago).
The President isn't responsible for the health insurance crisis. Congress is
(for not recognizing the problem and devising a way to deal with it years ago).
The President isn't responsible for global warming(?) either. There are
reputable scientists on both sides of this issue. (No argument, just stating a
fact.) If it is a reality, the industrialized nations of the world are jointly
responsible.
I could go on and on, but you get the picture. It's not the President's fault.
And while we're assigning blame, let's not forget the usurping of Legislature
powers by an activist Supreme Court that increasingly "enacts" legislation by
judicial decree, a process forbidden by the Constitution.
For what it's worth, disgruntled folk blaming everything on Republican
Congressional and Presidential "inadequacies" elected a Democrat majority to
replace them in Congress. What have the Democrats done during their two year
reign except complain about the Republicans and the President? Finger-pointing
and name-calling seems to have become petulant substitutes for decisive and
progressive action.
Personally, I prefer to vote for whomever I think is best qualified, not a
party line. At age 74 ... granted a prime curmudgeon age ... I have neither
patience nor sympathy for those who still blindly pin their hopes to party
lines and false promises.
I could continue the rant, but I won't. ;o) Sorry for slipping into a
"forbidden" topic, but the curmudgeon in me was screaming for an opportunity to
respond to this nonsensical view of the presidency.
Robert
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry <halpert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > But if you want to blame it on Bush, go ahead.
> Didn't blame the flood on Bush. What I actually said was
> specifically that it is not whether what could have been done
> in the past eight years would have had any effect. As far as
> Bush goes, he just spearpoints the easy assumptions that the
> occurance of more and more global weather catastrophes
> can just be coincidences, and mostly politics. There are
> better ways than defending the current president's ignorance
> to get another republican into the presidency to make SURE
> there's no universal healthcare, or to make sure Warren Buffett
> stays flabbergasted that his taxes are lower than his maid's. If
> you're against universal healthcare, and are one whose job
> doesn't throw full healthcare insurance at you, or you can't
> afford the nonsensical premiums - let me know what you
> think of universal healthcare when you need a doctor, and
> none of them want you. At least some countries know that
> it has nothing to do with making the right choices in life.
>
> Of course, he could spend his presidency helping perpetuate
> the ignorance that it is mostly politics. He obviously can't have
> any other effect, but as far as the presidency goes its bad
> enough, and just one more sickening thing about him.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|