Why risk it anyway! (Risking our system of laws by keeping Clinton)
Okay, the why question. Frankly I wish there was a better way to go through past posts because I have to repeat myself often.
First of all ask yourself, not your retorical facade, but yourself. If Clinton is President is the government going to fall?
Now ask yourself what it means if a President is removed for trivial reasons. OH! youre going to say, this is not trivial, this is perjury, this is adultary, this the the worst behavior ever exhibited in a human being since Cain killed Abel. Well get a grip!
This is someone messing around, after resisting I might add, and then not being forthcomming in explanations. This is something worth of a week in the National Enquirer.
To remove a President under these circumstances makes a change in precidence for our country. The way the country has been run for the last 200 years is that there are two co-equal branches of government (plus a third different branch). If the President can be removed for such a trivial offense, then he and all future Presidents will serve at the whim of the House of Representatives.
While you may enjoy a parliamentary system, I feel that our current Presidential system has many unique advantages. The chief of these is stability. The election period is known to the electorate and they can plan their decisions accordingly. Next, and perhaps most important there is a blending of ideas from the executive branch to the judicial. Those countries which operate under parliaments suffer from abrupt changes when the government changes because all institutions change at once. In our presidential system of government there is more compromise as the executive and legislative branches must come to an acommodation to pass any laws.
Al Gore will be a decent President?
I agree, in two more years. Any acceleration will make the next President the lapdog of the the House.
TP |
