SI
SI
discoversearch

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: TimF who wrote (303255)9/15/2006 1:27:15 PM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1571043
 
"I haven't lost that point at all, in fact I raised it right at the beginning of the conversation -"

Then why try to come up with a president having the right to ignore laws they don't agree with? Because allowing the executive that kind of power negates the whole concept of checks and balances. Either Congress has the right to restrain the executive, or they don't. If they don't, they why do they exist? Because allowing the executive to negate the legislative on a whim means that the legislative branch is just wasting oxygen. Hmm, now admittedly an argument can made for that regardless, but we are talking about on paper.



To: TimF who wrote (303255)9/16/2006 4:13:54 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1571043
 
you have lost sight of an important point, he signed all these things into law. If he truly believed they were unconstitutional, why sign them?

I haven't lost that point at all, in fact I raised it right at the beginning of the conversation -

"...I fault Bush for this practice, because he should veto the law if he thinks its unconstitutional..."

Then why are you defending this BS?


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News