Ted Re...Separation of powers does not mean the president is not beholden to Congress; in fact, he is to be to some degree.
The president, in not beholden, when it comes to investigations. Congress, if it were true, could set up any type of exploratory committee it wants, and then the president would be obliged to testify under oath, and be subject to the rules the congress sets on the hearings. In fact, the president has no obligation whatsoever, to accommodate the congress under duress. So, if the congress wants the pres. to testify, ground rules need to be established, such that the pres. testifying is voluntary, and doesn't set a precedent.
The point of separation of powers is so that no one branch can get out of line and put the US out on a limb
That statement, I would disagree with. The separation of powers, was enacted, to make sure no other branch, had control, over any other, as it pertains to their duties. The president has no right pass any legislation, not approved by congress, and congress has no right to tell the president, how to run the executive branch. They can make suggestions, but there is no legal authority, over each other, and both have no legal authority over the judiciary. Forcing the president, to show up, under oath, would be extending legal authority, over the executive branch. The congress though, has the right to hold hearings, and impeach the president, should congress feel, he has usurped his duties.
However, the separation of powers precept has failed us.
To you maybe, but not to me, and I think most people would with me. There are good reasons to keep them separate, and I believe the concept should be protected.
Congress screwed up......they let Bush get us into a war over the flimsiest of reasons because they were afraid to object or they couldn't object because they belonged to the GOP.
Really. Then your boy Kerry is a liar, because he claimed it was GW's lies, which caused them to vote for the war. The simple truth is, there were many reasons for the war, WMD, being only one of them.
Relinquishment of their duties by past congresses led us to this mess
Then you should be yammering to get rid of congress, not GW. Those past congresses were mostly Dem. ones, until the last few yrs.
The Constitution has been subverted and the presidential branch now declares war instead of the branch that was assigned that responsibility by the Constitution.......Congress
Actually, there have only been one or two wars, authorized by congress, since WWII, and the Iraq war was one of them. Truman, never did declare war in Korea, and I don't believe Nam was ever declared a war either. The nature of wars nowadays, makes it imperative, the president has the ability to act quickly, even faster than the congress could sometimes, so that is why the president was given temporary powers. |
