Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hmaly who wrote (184053)	3/4/2004 5:37:09 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1575429

>>Ted Re....The separation of powers was a provision of the checks and balances system provided for in the Constitution. They were put into place to insure that no one branch gained control over the entire gov't.<<< Whether we say control over the entire gov. or control over any other branch, the definition for the separation of powers act is essentually the same. No it isn't.......read: "The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power known as Checks and Balances." usconstitution.net Its the most important principle in our Constitution. Our founding father were extremely protective our democracy. To subvert it in any way is very dangerous IMO. Whether it is the most important, or one of the most important, I won't quibble over. Nonetheless, because of its importance, it is imperative, that the separation of powers be maintained, and therefore, you can understand the importance of the lawyers getting the ground rules correct, so GW can make an appearance, without violating those principles; because the principles are more important, than any inquiry,. In reality, the inquiry is an example of the separation of powers/checks and balances being put into play. One branch is checking on the alleged misbehavior of another. Bush usurped one of the responsibilities given to Congress.......declaring war. Congress gave GW the right to declare war, in the case of Iraq. Congress usurped itself. Because of partisanship and cajoling.....from the executive branch. It was a sad day for the Constitution. Whether its lies or they were intimidated......what does it matter....the end result was same. It matters a lot. Kerry was one of those who you claimed was intimidated. Would you want a person with his hand on the button, who can be intimidated easily; or lied to for that matter. LOL! Most people were intimidated by Bush and company after 9/11 much like many people were intimidated by McCarthy during the early fifties. If you objected to Bush's "proclamations", you were treated with scorn and called unpatriotic, received death threats, slurred with the name of benedict arnold etc. If you were a congress person, you were fed intel that had been manipulated in order to put the worst possible spin on the situation in Iraq with re. to WMD and al Qaeda links. Still, I am disappointed with the Congresspeople who went along with the Bushies; however, I am completely disgusted by the Bushies. We're down to the lesser of two evils. And btw I am not holding Congress guiltless. They were too weak to stand up to dubya and let him bamboozle them. There is a WA senator who voted for the war.......she will never get my vote again. If you want to say that, then why are you going to vote for Kerry? The lesser of two evils........... The simple truth is that there were many reasons for the Iraq war; WMD was only one of them. In its totality, congress and GW had no choice. The fact that there weren't any WMD there doesn't change the facts present, when they made the decision. "The simple truth" is filled with cow dung and manipulated intel so that there is no "simple truth" left.