Simply put, doesn't the Legislative Branch make the Law, and the Executive Branch enforce the Law, and the Judicial Branch define the law? Why do President's always have a legislative agenda? Isn't that Legislative province? Is the Legislative Branch just there to do the bidding of the President? Shouldn't the President be there to do the bidding of the Legislature (i.e. execute and enforce the laws of the land via The FBI, US Marshalls and The Justice Department)? It seems to me like this is topsy-turvy. Is there something I misunderstand or has this whole thing evolved in the Media Age? Is it right? or better? How could it be changed if needed. It seems like our system of checks and balances get watered down by each branch trying to do the other's job. By the way, this would seem to be an ideal that both major parties and all minor parties (except Socialists and Communists) would readily embrace. Any historians out there who can clarify this for us? And lastly, what would be the implications of Shane Battier dropping to the bottom of the lottery where the Rockets could and would snap him up? ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.
Why do President's always have a legislative agenda? Legislative success is influenced by public opinion, and the President has the greatest reach of influence on public opinion. Isn't that Legislative province? Is the Legislative Branch just there to do the bidding of the President? Shouldn't the President be there to do the bidding of the Legislature Checks and balances were built in because its expected and assumed that each branch will try to usurp more and more power -- thats just human and institutional nature. That's exactly what has happened here. All 3 branches have scratched and clawed their way for more power. For example, the Executive Branch sets the tone for everything and now can sort-of declare war (not technically, of course). The Judicial Branch often expands or rewrites law through its rulings. The Legislative branch usurped the "Commerce" clause to justify everything it does -- probably well beyond what was originally intended. Just because the President has his agenda doesn't mean the legislature has to follow it, especially when its separate parties running the two. That's where the balance comes from. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
There has certainly never been a president in my lifetime that hasn't had a legislative agenda. You're right that the lines have become much more blurry than many people (myself included) are comfortable with. The one that most concerns me is the power grab by the judical branch. These are men and women who are appointed for life, who, once sworn in, are not the least bit accountable to the governed, and are expanding legislation in many areas farther than those in Congress ever dreamed. That, to me, is a real concern. Reading in more than is there is extremely dangerous, in my opinion, and greatly diminishes the lawcrafting abilities of the legislators. I am also concerned with the legislature's new role in confirming judicial nominations that the president brings before them. If the nominee has a questionable history or if he/she can't do the job, then fine....but to eliminate a nominee because he doesn't share the political philosophy of the legislative branch is just flat out wrong. That ignores the fact that the president who won the election, won for a reason...people expect his nominations to be approved, as long as they're reasonable...it's what they voted for! This is a powergrab by the legislative branch that concerns me. The executive branch's power doesn't seem to bother me as much. Maybe it's because that is the branch that is usually the easiest to hold accountable. As long as the other branches do their job (which I don't believe they did during the Clinton administration) in checking the executive power, the limits on this power are pretty good. ------------------
"Simply put, doesn't the Legislative Branch make the Law, and the Executive Branch enforce the Law, and the Judicial Branch define the law?" Technically, yes. "Why do President's always have a legislative agenda?" Originally, they didn't quite as much. For instance, proposing a budget didn't become standard pratice until the middleof the 19th century. However, the President is generally the primary figure of his political party, and as such, is able to dictate a good bit of policy. Shanna's right, also, in that the President is best able to mobilize public opinion. Finally, the President is the only figure everyone votes for. His election as seen as an endorsement of a certain policy agenda. No other figure can claim this kind of mandate. "Isn't that Legislative province? Is the Legislative Branch just there to do the bidding of the President? Shouldn't the President be there to do the bidding of the Legislature (i.e. execute and enforce the laws of the land via The FBI, US Marshalls and The Justice Department)?" Well, he does. Executive orders are supposed to be relatively limited in scope. Clinton, and now Bush even more, have expanded the nature of executive orders. I don't like that AT ALL. "It seems to me like this is topsy-turvy. Is there something I misunderstand or has this whole thing evolved in the Media Age?" It's been gradually evolving since the birth of the nation. "Is it right? or better? How could it be changed if needed. It seems like our system of checks and balances get watered down by each branch trying to do the other's job." It's probably necessary. Our President is actually very, very weak already as a head-of-state. Most nations, even with checks and balances, of much more powerful chief executives. If we want to deal with national problems, we need a somewhat strong President. It's also essential to stop pork and extreme localism, as congressional members are responsible only to their districts. "By the way, this would seem to be an ideal that both major parties and all minor parties (except Socialists and Communists) would readily embrace." I'm a socialist. I embrace this system. "Any historians out there who can clarify this for us?" Hope I helped. "And lastly, what would be the implications of Shane Battier dropping to the bottom of the lottery where the Rockets could and would snap him up?" The Rockets would be lucky sods, and would make the playoffs next year . ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
It's a tyranny, that's why. Presidents declare war and Justices write law. And while in earlier times the Legislature did a pretty good job in grabbing power, it seems like they are trying to give it away at every turn nowadays. ------------------ RealGM Gafford Art Artisan Cakes
Juan -- I would hardly call it a tyranny...but I also agree that the legislature is way too willing to assign legislative power away to executive agencies like the EPA, giving them "rule-making" authority. Oftentimes this rule making looks a lot more like legislating and is not corrected enough by the judicial branch. haven -- how has bush expanded the executive role??? I can certainly see how you would say that clinton did that, abusing many priviliges and gobbling up private land along the way...but bush??? where?? when?? I don't see it. Clinton's executive orders were so far-reaching it's ridiculous...Bush has simply reversed some of them to temper that. But what do you mean??? ------------------
MadMax: At this point in his Presidency, he's issued more executive orders than any other President. Well, he that was true as of about 3 weeks ago. I don't know if it is now or not. He's issued a number of executive orders concerning how the bureaucracies function (such as the notorious page-limit rule for memos), and has actually withheld some funding from organizations. He also lifted some regulations on energy use via executive order, not sure exactly what. None of the executive orders clearly violate the constitution, but Presidents usually issue such orders in lesser #, and allow more of them for a vote. Clinton did it, and I disapproved of it. Bush does it, and I still disapprove of it. Just looks like Bush is doing it even more. I read about this in a magazine - if I remember which one, I'll let you know - but it was either Harpers or Newsweek, because those are the ones i suscribe to . ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
haven -- i think the number of executive orders is irrelevant as long as they aren't overreaching..particulary when they relate to bureaucracy and how business is done amongst the agencies. I have no problem with a page limit on memos, if that's how this administration thinks they can govern most effectively. Of course that can be changed when a new president is eventually elected in order to meet his/her wishes. my understanding is that a good deal of bush's executive orders have simply been 180's on what Clinton did in his final days of office. None of those orders (or the bureaucratic ones) would even have a place before Congress. The ones you're talking about with Clinton arguably belonged before Congress some time ago. The bottom line is the executive branch is nearly useless without executive orders. Again, the only question is how far reaching they are. I don't think we've seen that yet with Bush. You may not agree with their substance, but that doesn't mean they're overreaching or usurping the power of the legislature. ------------------
MadMax: Argh! I don't have a problem with executive orders per se... ... personally, I'm not a student of the executive order. Let me put it this way: it has been remarked upon, by people in analytical positions, that Bush has issued very powerful executive orders. Maybe they're wrong. I'm not sure. But it has been *said* by "experts." ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
