As I have already pointed out, the Constitution provides a means -- and the rules -- to change it. I am in favor of making some limited changes constitutionally to avoid a particular fear of the Founding Fathers, i.e., an imperial president.
I'm sure there were people who disagreed with each of the amendments. There have been some amendments that have been proposed and rejected. The Constitution endures because it is difficult to change, but change is possible when there is a serious need. The abuses, IMO and I am not alone, of and by Obama and his administration have brought a growing problem into focus. Impeachment will be easier after the next Congressional elections, but that will not solve the problem of potential abuses by future presidents, whether Democrat, Republican or Independent.
Telling that you felt the need to qualify your hate. There is no logical reason for your hate therefore one can only assume the true reasons.
I've always wondered - how can a group of people who have to be re-elected every 2 or 6 years via direct elections have such consistently low approval ratings (I believe 10% right now)? How do these people win the vote if so many people are unhappy? What's the turnout like for elections, is it as bad as the presidential elections?
It's ironic that the same people who constantly talk about the Constitution and fear of a "king" are the same people who were only too happy to give the presidency almost limitless powers(Patriot Act, named in a way that if you're against it, you hate America) for a limitless duration("War on Terror" is practically speaking endless).
It is not "telling." I made that statement because you, among others, throw out the race card anytime anybody doesn't gush over Obama. Perhaps I should throw the Hispanic race card every time you disagree with me. If I remember correctly, and I do, you called for the impeachment of Bush 43 on more than several occasions, and your hatred of him was visceral. Why am I not permitted the same privilege since I disagree with Obama's policies with an equal vigor?
There is no irony, just sorrow that Congress has abdicated many of its functions to the presidency. Because the Patriot Act and other laws and agencies have been used wrongly to abuse the American people, there is a growing desire to fix the problem at its root. Congress, and both parties are equally guilty, has a penchant for naming bills with glorious gusto. Your mention of the Patriot Act is spot on, as is the naming of the Affordable Care Act. Of course, since the latter was so laughable on its face, everyone refers to it as Obamacare.
As I wrote to meh, the anger wells from frustration with Congress as a whole due to their abdication of their duties. Not that long ago Congress had the will and means to punish someone who lied to them, as Holder, Miller, Lerner, Crapper et al have done in recent months. A contempt ruling would have put them in jail until such time as they decided to tell the truth -- the whole truth -- and nothing but the truth. Now a contempt ruling is rarely made since that ruling has no teeth and therefore lowers the respect for Congress for being so flaccid.
Their low rating has been before this administration. The reasons you just stated is not even a blip on the radar of why congress rating is in the toilet. I'm afraid you have too much hate to see straight.
Because this president has not, to our knowledge, broken any laws or lied the country into a needless war that got 4000 Americans killed. Not to mention almost bringing the country to the verge of economic collapse. No, there is no equivalent reason for the hatred you hold for this president. So one can only surmise that you hate this president on a personal level that you are too ashamed to admit in public.
I agree that the opinion of Congress has been in decline for as long as I have been around. However, the same is almost as true for the presidency. Politicians as a whole have lower esteem levels than almost any other occupation, particularly because, generally speaking, they have forgotten that they were elected to serve their constituents, not themselves. As far as the rest, I don't hate anybody. I do hate the policies that some ardently embrace. This may be a difficult concept for you, but, for example, I do not hate Obama the man but I do hate Obama the politico.
That makes sense, but doesn't really explain the downward trend in approval given the option to renew quite often. Are there any minimum requirements? Are there any informal barriers to entry such as wealth or having a certain occupation?
Sometimes, mc mark, I do not believe you live in the real world. But, I'm sure you are a good guy anyway.
I didn't said you hate the man. I said your hate keep you from seeing straight. Anyhow, let me take that back. Too strong of a word. Everyone has their own opinions on things.
This is one of the reasons Congress is a failed institution. Congressmen each elected by their district. The people responsible for making the laws of their country are only accountable to a tiny section of it, and they have zero incentive to do anything that will be locally unpopular for the national good. When you have Congressmen for whom jeopardizing the full faith and credit is a winning issue, that's a pretty good indication that your lawmaking mechanism is broken. But I'm not worried. As long as we don't face any serious problems ever again, what's the harm?
