Finally - Someone in Congress Gets It

[Linkster]

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=609

The letter sent to the White House today - and I noticed the words Inherent Contempt used in the letter - which is about time they started using that authority - gets around all executive priviledge and gets the DOJ having to follow the Congress's orders no matter what

[kres24GT]

If a politician voted to limit their own power, then I would say they get it.

[Linkster]

Why would they want to limit their own power? Guess Im missing your point - I was trying to point out that the congress finally figured out they have an actual authority over all of these executive branch flunkies that have been flaunting executive priviledge not knowing that congress has a power that hasnt been used since the 1930s theyve been sitting on

[StrBellydSneetch]

If a politician voted to limit their own power, then I would say they get it.

Well, there is a problem with Congress voting to limit their power. That power must be transfered elsewhere, and I can guarantee you, in this day and age, it won't be to the people. Actually, the Congress has given up some of their powers and handed them to the executive branch, whether through actual law making, or just by not exercising its powers. This obviously leads to an incredibly strong executive power, and a weak legislative branch (which also represents the people, so the people, inevitably lose power.)

I'm not sure how your quote applies to the topic at hand, but in the long run, I'm not sure it's even a valid comment. Now, I understand if you didn't word your argument right and meant, for example, that the President, as a politician, would be honorable and a good politician if he voted to limit his own power so that the citizens could express their opinions more and control equal power to the government. But I am only making assumptions, since you didn't actually say that...

On to the actual topic: Finally! Congress demands their power back. During the Bush Administration especially, the US government has had a serious issue with the White House controlling too much power. For example, with the Iraq war, even though Congress has threatened to not increase the budget and to put a cap on the number of troops, President Bush claims that he will go ahead with the war whether it is approved by Congress or not, because HE is Commander in Chief. Although he thinks this, he can't do it. Only Congress has the right to declare war, and can have troops withdrawn if they wish.

Here's a link to some information: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/29/opinion/edcohen.php?page=1

We really need a new presidential administration. Hopefully, in the next election, a candidate that understands the limits of the constitution and the importance of citizen power, will be elected. You know, one that doesn't limit the freedom of speech (You must be a certain distance from the President if you are not supporting him), freedom of privacy (wire-tapping) and will listen to the voice of the people (What's the approval rating for the Iraq War now? 13% or so?)

[kres24GT]

Well, there is a problem with Congress voting to limit their power. That power must be transfered elsewhere, and I can guarantee you, in this day and age, it won't be to the people. Actually, the Congress has given up some of their powers and handed them to the executive branch, whether through actual law making, or just by not exercising its powers. This obviously leads to an incredibly strong executive power, and a weak legislative branch (which also represents the people, so the people, inevitably lose power.)

I'm not sure how your quote applies to the topic at hand, but in the long run, I'm not sure it's even a valid comment. Now, I understand if you didn't word your argument right and meant, for example, that the President, as a politician, would be honorable and a good politician if he voted to limit his own power so that the citizens could express their opinions more and control equal power to the government. But I am only making assumptions, since you didn't actually say that...

On to the actual topic: Finally! Congress demands their power back. During the Bush Administration especially, the US government has had a serious issue with the White House controlling too much power. For example, with the Iraq war, even though Congress has threatened to not increase the budget and to put a cap on the number of troops, President Bush claims that he will go ahead with the war whether it is approved by Congress or not, because HE is Commander in Chief. Although he thinks this, he can't do it. Only Congress has the right to declare war, and can have troops withdrawn if they wish.

Here's a link to some information: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/29/opinion/edcohen.php?page=1

We really need a new presidential administration. Hopefully, in the next election, a candidate that understands the limits of the constitution and the importance of citizen power, will be elected. You know, one that doesn't limit the freedom of speech (You must be a certain distance from the President if you are not supporting him), freedom of privacy (wire-tapping) and will listen to the voice of the people (What's the approval rating for the Iraq War now? 13% or so?)


Exactly my point about power, we need politcians who will return it to the people. You aren't going to find any with a "realistic " chance of winning though.

[StrBellydSneetch]

Well, we can get the people we want elected, if we all ban together and vote for it.

People underestimate the power of the primaries. Hardly anyone votes in them, and usually the ones that do are like hardcore nut cases that are so bent on the far left (or far right) side of their political parties views, that we end up with bad candidates.

I'm really trying to get people motivated to vote in the primaries. I'm a political science major and throughout the classes that I've had, I've learned that sometimes (and quite possibly this election could be one of those instances) the primaries are more important. Think of it this way, if we don't get people to vote in the primary election, then we already let other people decide for us. We are LETTING them narrow down our decisions for who is going to be president. (I'm not exactly a fan of primaries myself, but as long as they're still intact, we must make do and vote in them).

Now think, if more people voted in the primaries, then we would have two REAL candidates...possibly two GOOD candidates that a majority of the people voted for (Not just a measly sum of "too far from the middle" lunatics)

Personally, even though I'm a strong democrat, Im going to register as republican to vote in the primaries for the candidate that I want. To me, all of the democratic candidates are pretty much tooting the same policies, information, etc. They all want more socialized healthcare, they all want to withdraw from Iraq (mostly within a timetable), etc Now, the republican candidates, those are widely spread. You have John McCain who's for the Iraq War. (I definitely don't want him to be in the Presidential finalists....hell no). You have Giuliani, who says he was a vital asset to September 11th, but everyone else involved says otherwise. You have Ron Paul, who has so many Democratic liberals on his side that don't understand how to get the man elected. The Republicans aren't going to vote for him in the primary because few agree with him, so he really needs the support of his followers. He needs motivated followers. (There's others, but I'm not going to list them. If you want to learn more about the candidates, I have a website [see my signature] that has information on nearly all of the candidates)

But the point is. We are in control. Unfortunately, a majority of us don't think we are, think that our votes don't matter, or are too concerned with their damn Ipods to look around at the world once in a while. So I guess, for those of us that are concerned, are politically informed, and want to see a good president elected, it's our job to get the rest at least someone informed and motivated to vote.

I'm sorry, I rambled a bit. I tried to sum it up...but started rambling again.

[Bill]

That's an interesting point, the power of the primaries.

However, I've been registered as an independent (Libertarian) most of my life, so for me, voting in the primaries has been less than relevant.

But, I think you may be on to something, with the idea of pushing the primaries.

[StrBellydSneetch]

OF COURSE I AM! Lol.

I'm serious, a lot of people just don't realize how important voting in them really is. It really lets US choose the candidates, instead of having them chosen for us and then deciding which of the two we prefer.

For example, the media keeps calling Ron Paul a long shot candidate, etc etc. He really wouldn't be if all of the people that support him in the internet went out, registered as a republican and voted for him in the primaries. He's only a long shot because REPUBLICANS don't like him. He supports their original values, and not so much the values they stand for today. Do you know he's the most searched candidate? People are interested, and are hoping he makes it to the final election, but they're not realizing, he will only be President if they vote in the primaries for him.

My views aren't radical by any means. But the problem is that the primaries have been downplayed in the media as not that important. It might even be that the parties themselves downplay them so that only true Republicans or Democrats vote in them. I'm not sure why it isn't pushed very much, but they are extremely important in deciding the outcome of the presidential election.

You know, I would technically register as an independent because I would rather not identify myself to one point of view BUT I have realized that unless you're republican or democrat, you're not getting anyone elected, especially for president. That's the downfall of a two party system.

My advice to you (if you care to take it) is to find a candidate that you really support and register for their party. You can always change back to independent or whatever afterwards. The thing is, as an independent, you can't vote in the Republican or Democratic primaries, which makes it hard for your vote to really count.

[kres24GT]

Well, we can get the people we want elected, if we all ban together and vote for it.

People underestimate the power of the primaries. Hardly anyone votes in them, and usually the ones that do are like hardcore nut cases that are so bent on the far left (or far right) side of their political parties views, that we end up with bad candidates.

I'm really trying to get people motivated to vote in the primaries. I'm a political science major and throughout the classes that I've had, I've learned that sometimes (and quite possibly this election could be one of those instances) the primaries are more important. Think of it this way, if we don't get people to vote in the primary election, then we already let other people decide for us. We are LETTING them narrow down our decisions for who is going to be president. (I'm not exactly a fan of primaries myself, but as long as they're still intact, we must make do and vote in them).

Now think, if more people voted in the primaries, then we would have two REAL candidates...possibly two GOOD candidates that a majority of the people voted for (Not just a measly sum of "too far from the middle" lunatics)

Personally, even though I'm a strong democrat, Im going to register as republican to vote in the primaries for the candidate that I want. To me, all of the democratic candidates are pretty much tooting the same policies, information, etc. They all want more socialized healthcare, they all want to withdraw from Iraq (mostly within a timetable), etc Now, the republican candidates, those are widely spread. You have John McCain who's for the Iraq War. (I definitely don't want him to be in the Presidential finalists....hell no). You have Giuliani, who says he was a vital asset to September 11th, but everyone else involved says otherwise. You have Ron Paul, who has so many Democratic liberals on his side that don't understand how to get the man elected. The Republicans aren't going to vote for him in the primary because few agree with him, so he really needs the support of his followers. He needs motivated followers. (There's others, but I'm not going to list them. If you want to learn more about the candidates, I have a website [see my signature] that has information on nearly all of the candidates)

But the point is. We are in control. Unfortunately, a majority of us don't think we are, think that our votes don't matter, or are too concerned with their damn Ipods to look around at the world once in a while. So I guess, for those of us that are concerned, are politically informed, and want to see a good president elected, it's our job to get the rest at least someone informed and motivated to vote.

I'm sorry, I rambled a bit. I tried to sum it up...but started rambling again.


I don't vote in primaries because I refuse to join a party.

[Moby]

You have an interesting point as I've stated many times since moving to South Carolina that the only vote that counts in this state is the primary. You could run a dead man, Bin Laden or even a professional lobbyist for President and if an "R" was next to the name that person would win by at least 60%.

Very rarely does your vote even count in a Presidential election but it always counts in a primary. Remember, we do NOT live in a democracy. We have this silly thing known as the electoral college that doesn't work and we all know that.

[StrBellydSneetch]

Yeah, I think the electoral college is a bunch of bull, personally. If I'm not mistaken, in the last election, Bush actually had less than the majority of votes, but won because of the electoral college. That's not exactly letting the people decide, now is it?

And the refusing to join a party is kind of screwed up. As I said, I'm definitely more democratic than republican, but if I know that the only way my candidate has a chance at getting elected, I am more than willing to let the census think that there's one more Republican in my state. The thing is, sometimes you must make sacrifices in order to get the right person elected, whether they're a Democrat, a Republican, Libertarian, or from the damn Green Party. Even if that means giving up your non stance on the subject. And it's not like you have to live your life upholding every belief of that party anyways. (Damn, look at Ron Paul for example. Doesn't exactly exemplify the current republican party....) And it's not like it can't be changed when you go to register again.

From what I've read in the few sections of this forum, most of you claim to be independent. So does that mean you're voting for the independent candidate? Do you even know who's running as an independent? Do you know if there's ever been an independent elected? No? Hmm...well then that's probably not the best stance, now is it? Seriously, call me crazy, but if there's only a slim chance in hell for you to get an independent elected, don't you think it's a better idea to find who you think is the best candidate, pick a party, and join it, even if it's just long enough to get that person through the primary?

And why refuse to join a party? Just so the government can't accurately calculated the percentage of red and blue states? So that you don't have to pick between the two parties. (I say two parties, even though there's more simply because the realistic chances of getting anyone elected that's not from those two is slim to absolutely zero. We live in a two party system, with a few thrown in that 'refuse to join a party' for miscellaneous reasons.) Well, then you're not effectively using your powers as a citizen. It's just not economical. You can't vote in primaries, and are therefore forfeiting your right as an American to choose your president. You're letting other people choose for you. And yes, I know, if everyone chose to not pick a party then that would eventually get rid of the two party system and we would all live happily ever after, but the world just doesn't work like that. What will work however, is manipulating the system that we do have to work in our favor, so that eventually there might be great change.

[Judy___]

That's an interesting point, the power of the primaries.

However, I've been registered as an independent (Libertarian) most of my life, so for me, voting in the primaries has been less than relevant.

But, I think you may be on to something, with the idea of pushing the primaries.

I'm an Independent too but we get to choose the party ballot we wish to vote in the primaries. In Arizona there are as many Independents as members in either major party.

If we had IRV ranked voting we wouldn't need primaries - one election would do. It would be lots cheaper.

[Kinky Jones]

In Arizona there are as many Independents as members in either major party.

with mccain on one side and napolatano on the other we might be the model state for becoming 100% independent and start actually voting on the issues :lmao2: