Serious;y? You know him from apprentice. You know him from a fued with Rose O'Donnald. Now he wants to run for PRESIDENT? What do you think about that.
Lawmaking is the government's most important responsibility and since the president doesn't do that, he really has a small job to do.
And you probably didn't read a thing of the responsibilities and duties a president has and does. This "small job" you think the president has really isn't small.
...
Also, the Judicial branch is the most powerful. *runs off giggling*
And you probably didn't read a thing of the responsibilities and duties a president has and does. This "small job" you think the president has really isn't small.
You are right I didn't read. Now, what do you consider the government's most important job, to make laws, or to be diplomatic?
Also, the Judicial Branch is the Supreme Law of the Land, yes, but Congress has more powers than both of those two combined. Look at the US Constitution. Congress is described in the FIRST amendment, and has more written about it than the executive branch. In the Articles of Confederation, there isn't even an executive branch.
Do you think the founding fathers wanted a powerful executive branch?
In the Articles of Confederation, there isn't even an executive branch.
Observe: It failed. Miserably. Don't make comparisons on failed policies.
Lawmaking is the government's most important responsibility and since the president doesn't do that, he really has a small job to do.
Because congress can totally make people obey the law. >.>
He doesn't have a small job by any means. Presidents effectively appoint the entire judicial branch, run quite a few different parts of government (directly, no less), can tell someone to kill you (my favorite), get anyone out of jail, and keep other countries from turning us to wasteland.
Oh yes, and directly command the military. Directly.
You are right I didn't read. Now, what do you consider the government's most important job, to make laws, or to be diplomatic?
The government shouldn't be making laws at all, save for the few that are in the interest of the well-being of the people and to make sure that everyone gets full chances in competition. What am I emphasizing here? The Food and Wellness act, the FDA, anti-trust laws, minimum age laws, minimum wage laws, these are good laws the government has done. I probably forgot a few. In any case, the federal government shouldn't really do much as a whole, while the state government should do more, as the powers diverge into the wants of the people much better. You are focusing more into a concentrated area, where it is needed most.
Also, the Judicial Branch is the Supreme Law of the Land, yes, but Congress has more powers than both of those two combined.
Lol. The Judicial branch is the other two branches' father. If 5 says no, then it is no. If they don't like what the other two are doing, then 5 just have to say no. That goes along with them being the final say in a federal case.
Do you think the founding fathers wanted a powerful executive branch?
They never wanted a branch that was more powerful than the other, hence why Congress isn't as powerful as the other two. The President is a big deal, as it is one man that heads all of his responsibilities and duties, while his cabinet assists him. This is what we were getting at in the beginning.
WOW. I have never met an anarchist before. So you honestly believe the people can govern themselves?
Lol. The Judicial branch is the other two branches' father. If 5 says no, then it is no. If they don't like what the other two are doing, then 5 just have to say no. That goes along with them being the final say in a federal case.
If you actually knew anything, Congress can declare war, collect taxes, pass laws, coin money, burn money, regulate business, construct government buildings, and issue the construction of a national road.
The Judicial Branch, initially, never had any power.
They never wanted a branch that was more powerful than the other, hence why Congress isn't as powerful as the other two. The President is a big deal, as it is one man that heads all of his responsibilities and duties, while his cabinet assists him. This is what we were getting at in the beginning.
Are you joking? Congress has way more power than both of them. The Judicial Branch can only interpret the Constitution and the Executive branch can only command the army and pass a bill.
Congress has more writing about it in the Constitution than both of the other branches.
Observe: It failed. Miserably. Don't make comparisons on failed policies.
The reason it failed was because Congress couldn't collect taxes, coin money, and needed the approval of all thirteen states to pass laws.
SMALL GOVERNMENT failed. Hmm. I wonder why people want that now.
Because congress can totally make people obey the law. >.>
The police enforce the law.
Anyway, the only reason they added an executive branch was so that departments and agencies concerning different areas could make laws freely.
Presidents effectively appoint the entire judicial branch,
Biggest lie ever. Some never appoint Justices. The ones that do, most of the time, only appoint one. Even then, the CONGRESS has to approve the decision.
Also,run quite a few different parts of government (directly, no less), can tell someone to kill you (my favorite), get anyone out of jail,
What?
keep other countries from turning us to wasteland.
WOW. I have never met an anarchist before. So you honestly believe the people can govern themselves?
Nice job, you took my post out of context.
[quote=I]he government shouldn't be making laws at all, save for the few that are in the interest of the well-being of the people and to make sure that everyone gets full chances in competition. What am I emphasizing here? The Food and Wellness act, the FDA, anti-trust laws, minimum age laws, minimum wage laws, these are good laws the government has done. I probably forgot a few. In any case, the federal government shouldn't really do much as a whole, while the state government should do more, as the powers diverge into the wants of the people much better. You are focusing more into a concentrated area, where it is needed most.[/url]
Read all of that, and you will (hopefully) realize that I meant no such thing as wanting our people to live in an anarchy.
If you actually knew anything, Congress can declare war, collect taxes, pass laws, coin money, burn money, regulate business, construct government buildings, and issue the construction of a national road.
The Judicial Branch, initially, never had any power.
You are right. Initially, the Judicial Branch never had any power. It wasn't until a few years after the Constitution was wholly formed where they could declare any act of the Executive and Legislative Branch unconstitutional. You are not thinking hypothetically just how powerful that really is, Kevin.
Are you joking? Congress has way more power than both of them. The Judicial Branch can only interpret the Constitution and the Executive branch can only command the army and pass a bill.
[quote=I]they could declare any act of the Executive and Legislative Branch unconstitutional.[/quote]
And since the Executive Branch has the power to appoint judges of the Judicial branch...that's technically making him even more powerful than even I emphasized. Go Congress, right?
they could declare any act of the Executive and Legislative Branch unconstitutional.
= Interpret the Constitution.
You are right. Initially, the Judicial Branch never had any power. It wasn't until a few years after the Constitution was wholly formed where they could declare any act of the Executive and Legislative Branch unconstitutional. You are not thinking hypothetically just how powerful that really is, Kevin.
That one ability is powerful, but I am arguing that Congress, overall, has more abilities than both of them combined.
And since the Executive Branch has the power to appoint judges of the Judicial branch...that's technically making him even more powerful than even I emphasized. Go Congress, right?
You do realize that Congress has to approve the Justice?
That one ability is powerful, but I am arguing that Congress, overall, has more abilities than both of them combined.
It doesn't mean squat when Daddy says no.
You do realize that Congress has to approve the Justice?
It doesn't mean squat when Daddy says no.
So. Again. Where are we going with this? Congress isn't as powerful as people say it is, despite being under the guise of having many different roles to play. But again, look at Checks and Balances of the three branches. When all their roles can get shut down by the Judicial Branch on the grounds of constitutionality, that doesn't make them that powerful.
Why is it a big deal for the President? Because one man assumes many various roles. One man being able to do this makes him very powerful.
The Constitution doesn't have this. It is an implied power via Judicial Review.
Marburry v. Madison anyone?
I am talking about the Supreme Court's power now. Actually, judicial review is pretty clear. This is what John Marshall wrote:
In his opinion, Marshall set out three principles of judicial review: (a) The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. (b) When there is a conflict between the Constitution and any other law, the Constitution must be followed. (c) The judicial branch has a duty to uphold the Constitution. It must be able to determine when a federal law conflicts with the Constitution and to nullify, or cancel, unconstitutional laws.
This is what it says in my textbook.
It doesn't mean squat when Daddy says no.
The Supreme Court doesn't take cases regarding Congress unless it blatantly disagrees with the Constitution. Actually, the Supreme Court has sometimes disagreed with the Constitution, so it really has nothing to do with Congress.
So. Again. Where are we going with this? Congress isn't as powerful as people say it is, despite being under the guise of having many different roles to play. But again, look at Checks and Balances of the three branches. When all their roles can get shut down by the Judicial Branch on the grounds of constitutionality, that doesn't make them that powerful.
You're missing the point. Congress making laws is only one of the many powers it has.
Why is it a big deal for the President? Because one man assumes many various roles. One man being able to do this makes him very powerful.
You do know that the President has advisers, a Cabinet, and hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats to aid him.
Federal law, as in the current federal law as well as proposed federal law.
The Supreme Court doesn't take cases regarding Congress unless it blatantly disagrees with the Constitution. Actually, the Supreme Court has sometimes disagreed with the Constitution, so it really has nothing to do with Congress.
Yes, any act of Congress and the Executive branch can be nullified if it is deemed unconstitutional. It is what makes the Judicial branch so powerful, and what makes Congress and the Executive branch no-so-powerful, a point which I have brought up before--points which you constantly overlook.
You're missing the point. Congress making laws is only one of the many powers it has.
What point am I missing? I acknowledge the fact that Congress has the power to propose laws, as well as other expressed powers, but again, the Judicial branch can completely nullify it if 5 of the 9 justices declares it unconstitutional. Their roles and responsibilities aren't as great as you make it out to be. Your case would have been better made and would have been given a better foundation if you included that Congress has the power to impeach the justices, but you in fact didn't. What isn't so great about this power, however, is that there are many, many senators and representatives that have to approve of the impeachment. It is a power that many people have to agree on. However, with the Judicial branch, their powers only have to be approved with FIVE.
You do know that the President has advisers, a Cabinet, and hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats to aid him.
Come on Kevin. The president has the final say in every aspect of his employees' agendas. He is Chief of Staff, Chief of Party, and Chief of Administrations. But thanks for reminding me though. It gives you a negative correlation to your argument. All those people have to be appointed, and the President does that job. His power is fierce, indeed.
Please refer back to my previous posts so I don't have to. It makes my posts very cluttered.
Federal law, as in the current federal law as well as proposed federal law.
Don't know what that is supposed to mean, but judicial review is specific. It does not imply anything. It states it.
Yes, any act of Congress and the Executive branch can be nullified if it is deemed unconstitutional. It is what makes the Judicial branch so powerful, and what makes Congress and the Executive branch no-so-powerful, a point which I have brought up before--points which you constantly overlook.
The Judicial Branch is powerful, but Congress just has more powers. That's what I want to say.
What point am I missing? I acknowledge the fact that Congress has the power to propose laws, as well as other expressed powers, but again, the Judicial branch can completely nullify it if 5 of the 9 justices declares it unconstitutional. Their roles and responsibilities aren't as great as you make it out to be. Your case would have been better made and would have been given a better foundation if you included that Congress has the power to impeach the justices, but you in fact didn't. What isn't so great about this power, however, is that there are many, many senators and representatives that have to approve of the impeachment. It is a power that many people have to agree on. However, with the Judicial branch, their powers only have to be approved with FIVE.
I suppose what we are arguing, is rather not which has more powers, but whether having more powers makes you more powerful.
The Judicial Branch has few powers, but it is very powerful. The Legislative Branch has many powers, and it is very powerful, also. I have come to realize that the Judicial Branch and Legislative Branch are equally powerful.
I just don't think the Executive Branch is very powerful. It has many, many powers, but it just isn't powerful. I now understand why people care so much about the President, but I just can't find myself to believe that the Executive Branch is important.
Look:
Judicial Branch: Few Powers, very powerful Legislative Branch: Many Powers, very powerful Executive Branch: Many Powers, not very powerful
Not really. The fathers of our ****ing nation made it so no brach is more powerful then an other.
You would think so, but if you would have read my and Kevin's argument, you would have found out exactly what the Judicial branch is capable of. Please do that.
And since there is an argument about what a Republic is: Democracy is just the form in which a Republic takes action with. Whether it is a direct democracy or representative democracy is up to the State. Most of America's democracy is representative, though there are certain methods in which democracy is direct, as in the people decide.
And Kevin, thanks for acknowledging the branches of government (and bringing our argument to an end! I was wondering when it would come to a close....)
Would it bring you closer to realization that the Executive branch is more powerful than you think if I said that the actions the President gives are quicker and, in some cases, instantaneous than the other two? I will then argue that, if you disagree that is.
