Correct me if I'm wrong. Please, set me straight. I've not been following the US presidential nomination campaigns all that closely but, that said, I haven't noticed one candidate on either side come out and say they would move to restrict the unconstitutionally-seized powers established by George w. Bush.
Governing by fiat, recess appointment, signing statements and outright defiance of the constitution has become so "second nature" with the Bush/Cheney tyranny that many, on both sides of the aisle, urged impeachment for the sake of restoring, unequivocally the constitutional balance of checks and powers. It wasn't so much for the sake of punishing Bush or Cheney as for upholding the constitution by prevailing on the legislative and judicial branches to rein in the executive.
An executive that cannot be removed by confidence vote and forced to defend its actions in front of the electorate surely must be otherwise restrained lest the nation itself turn into a quasi-dictatorship. And yet I haven't seen that this issue has achieved any prominence in the current campaigns.
Am I wrong? Please advise.
2 comments:
WTF? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. There has not been an impeachment, nor a vote of non-confidence. The Executive Branch has expanded and grown, but that is nothing new in American politics.
Well, anon. Surprising how your type like to hide their identity. Secret prisons, warrantless surveillance, suspension of habeas corpus - you would have to be as vile as Dick Cheney to dismiss this as "nothing new in American politics."
Post a Comment