"You deserve respect for admitting that the games get played both ways. There is a poster on the Formerly AMD thread who tries to sound reasonable, but IHO Democrat SH#T don't stink, and Republican do. There are rabid partisans on both sides. I am pleased to discuss issues of importance with a reasonable person."
Thanks, Peter!
"I may never be able to change your mind, but we can find some important common ground. Thanks."
Sure you can! (I change my mind all the time....)
"I still want the filibuster of judicial nominees ended."
It's a reasonable thing to want (to give a President his head in staffing the Courts with simpatico nominations).
I'm a little 'wishy-washy' on it though --- I can see advantages AND disadvantages in it.
IMO, our Founders hit upon a *most ingenious* method for preserving our citizen's freedoms in the face of governmental encroachments: the division of powers principle.
By realizing that no nation can COUNT on ALWAYS having wise and ethical (non-power-hungry) leaders, and that normal human nature will express itself given time... they tried to divide the government's power nearly as evenly as they could among three separate branches.
I believe that most serious students of the American experience will conclude that --- since the days of our founding --- although ALL THE GOVERNMENT HAS INCREASED IT'S POWERS OVER THE CITIZENS, the *one* branch of government that has increased it's powers the MOST, and has increased it's powers the most viv-a-vie the other branches... is the Executive.
Consequently, I'm less inclined to further increase the Executive's powers over the other two branches.
In my opinion, I believe it would be more harmful then helpful, because the increase would be for ALL TIME, benefiting ALL FUTURE EXECUTIVES (and not just the current temporary occupant of the office).
'Creeping Authoritarianism' is not desirable... we can't count on ALL future occupants of the political office to be just, judicious, and wise.... |
