[QUOTE="Head_of_games"]No, he shouldn't. Actually, I wouldn't mind if they changed the rules so he could be president again. *Hides in flame fallout shelter*fidosim
*Launches 1200 flame ICBMs.* Anyway, no he shouldn't.
Oh, come on, let's do it :P. That way, he can lose to Obama in 2012 :D.
I know you may be thinking this because he was a crap presidents and wars and such, but you can't really blame him since he doesn't work on his own or just give orders. Its a whole team/party thing, people behind it, that contribute and make all the decisions. You can't just take him to court for a trial.
I know you may be thinking this because he was a crap presidents and wars and such, but you can't really blame him since he doesn't work on his own or just give orders. Its a whole team/party thing, people behind it, that contribute and make all the decisions. You can't just take him to court for a trial.dramaybaz
Exactly. To take him to trial would require us to take every member of Congress, the Senate and the Supreme Court to trial as well.
[QUOTE="dramaybaz"]I know you may be thinking this because he was a crap presidents and wars and such, but you can't really blame him since he doesn't work on his own or just give orders. Its a whole team/party thing, people behind it, that contribute and make all the decisions. You can't just take him to court for a trial.-_Rain_-
Exactly. To take him to trial would require us to take every member of Congress, the Senate and the Supreme Court to trial as well.
[QUOTE="dramaybaz"]I know you may be thinking this because he was a crap presidents and wars and such, but you can't really blame him since he doesn't work on his own or just give orders. Its a whole team/party thing, people behind it, that contribute and make all the decisions. You can't just take him to court for a trial.-_Rain_-
Exactly. To take him to trial would require us to take every member of Congress, the Senate and the Supreme Court to trial as well.
[QUOTE="dramaybaz"]I know you may be thinking this because he was a crap presidents and wars and such, but you can't really blame him since he doesn't work on his own or just give orders. Its a whole team/party thing, people behind it, that contribute and make all the decisions. You can't just take him to court for a trial.Godly_Cure
Exactly. To take him to trial would require us to take every member of Congress, the Senate and the Supreme Court to trial as well.
Not necessarily.
Yes necessarily, because the President did nothing without the approval of the other branches. People whine that he sent us to war; Congress declares war. People ***** that he violated the Constitution; the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Unless people can spot him for doing something entirely on his own (thus either violating the Separation of Powers or doing something irrelevant to his presidency), there's nothing people are complaining about him that the other two branches of the federal government have not also partaken in.
No. All Presidents make mistakes, and Bush had his share, but I don't think he did anything that should cause him to be tried. Although I disagree with almost everything he did, I think he had the country's best interests in mind, I just disagreed with how he went about it.
Exactly. To take him to trial would require us to take every member of Congress, the Senate and the Supreme Court to trial as well.
-_Rain_-
Not necessarily.
Yes necessarily, because the President did nothing without the approval of the other branches. People whine that he sent us to war; Congress declares war. People ***** that he violated the Constitution; the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Unless people can spot him for doing something entirely on his own (thus either violating the Separation of Powers or doing something irrelevant to his presidency), there's nothing people are complaining about him that the other two branches of the federal government have not also partaken in.
You refuted your own claim in this post. The reason why it wouldn't require us to take every congressmen and supreme court justice is because there is a seperation of powers.
Yes necessarily, because the President did nothing without the approval of the other branches. People whine that he sent us to war; Congress declares war. People ***** that he violated the Constitution; the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Unless people can spot him for doing something entirely on his own (thus either violating the Separation of Powers or doing something irrelevant to his presidency), there's nothing people are complaining about him that the other two branches of the federal government have not also partaken in.
You refuted your own claim in this post. The reason why it wouldn't require us to take every congressmen and supreme court justice is because there is a seperation of powers.
*Sigh*
The Separation of Powers prevents people from just up and suing the President, because the Separation of Powers checks and works with eachother. If the President is to be tried for violating the Constitution somehow, then so is the Supreme Court for interpreting the Constitution in that way; if the President is to be tried for pushing for a madman's war then so is the Legislative Branch for declaring it. The Separation of Powers has nothing to do with separation of blame because the three branches work together in order to keep the government somewhat functional.
Yes necessarily, because the President did nothing without the approval of the other branches. People whine that he sent us to war; Congress declares war. People ***** that he violated the Constitution; the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Unless people can spot him for doing something entirely on his own (thus either violating the Separation of Powers or doing something irrelevant to his presidency), there's nothing people are complaining about him that the other two branches of the federal government have not also partaken in.
-_Rain_-
You refuted your own claim in this post. The reason why it wouldn't require us to take every congressmen and supreme court justice is because there is a seperation of powers.
*Sigh*
The Separation of Powers prevents people from just up and suing the President, because the Separation of Powers checks and works with eachother. If the President is to be tried for violating the Constitution somehow, then so is the Supreme Court for interpreting the Constitution in that way; if the President is to be tried for declaring a madman's war then so is the Legislative Branch for declaring it. The Separation of Powers has nothing to do with separation of blame because the three branches work together in order to keep the government somewhat functional.
The president is one branch of the separtion of powers. you can't hold the other two liable for what he does.:?
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] You refuted your own claim in this post. The reason why it wouldn't require us to take every congressmen and supreme court justice is because there is a seperation of powers.
Godly_Cure
*Sigh*
The Separation of Powers prevents people from just up and suing the President, because the Separation of Powers checks and works with eachother. If the President is to be tried for violating the Constitution somehow, then so is the Supreme Court for interpreting the Constitution in that way; if the President is to be tried for declaring a madman's war then so is the Legislative Branch for declaring it. The Separation of Powers has nothing to do with separation of blame because the three branches work together in order to keep the government somewhat functional.
The president is one branch of the separtion of powers. you can't hold the other two liable for what he does.:?
That's the thing: he doesn't do it. All three do it.
The only way to charge just the President is if he either violates that separation of Powers or he does something irrelevant to his presidency, like what happened to Clinton and Nixon.
That's the thing: he doesn't do it. All three do it.
The only way to charge just the President is if he either violates that separation of Powers or he does something irrelevant to his presidency, like what happened to Clinton and Nixon.
Yes necessarily, because the President did nothing without the approval of the other branches. People whine that he sent us to war; Congress declares war. People ***** that he violated the Constitution; the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Unless people can spot him for doing something entirely on his own (thus either violating the Separation of Powers or doing something irrelevant to his presidency), there's nothing people are complaining about him that the other two branches of the federal government have not also partaken in.
-_Rain_-
You refuted your own claim in this post. The reason why it wouldn't require us to take every congressmen and supreme court justice is because there is a seperation of powers.
*Sigh*
The Separation of Powers prevents people from just up and suing the President, because the Separation of Powers checks and works with eachother. If the President is to be tried for violating the Constitution somehow, then so is the Supreme Court for interpreting the Constitution in that way; if the President is to be tried for declaring a madman's war then so is the Legislative Branch for declaring it. The Separation of Powers has nothing to do with separation of blame because the three branches work together in order to keep the government somewhat functional.
That's not what I learned in civics. Yes, the branches of government share some powers, but they also have powers that they alone wield. The president, although he is unable to declare war, is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, so if war crimes are ordered by the president, who do you investigate? Not the Supreme Court or Congress, you investigate the executive branch. And the supreme court's interpretation of the constitution is the final interpretation that decides what is and is not constitutional, so I don't know what you are saying vis-a-vis constitutionality.
That's the thing: he doesn't do it. All three do it.
The only way to charge just the President is if he either violates that separation of Powers or he does something irrelevant to his presidency, like what happened to Clinton and Nixon.
I know what people mean by saying what did he do. He only lied...I mean was misinformed about Iraq having WMDs and he didn't react to Hurricane Katrina with prior warning. Nothing major.
But for real... no, I don't think he should be put on trial, waste of money and he'll win the case regardless.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] You refuted your own claim in this post. The reason why it wouldn't require us to take every congressmen and supreme court justice is because there is a seperation of powers.
-Sun_Tzu-
*Sigh*
The Separation of Powers prevents people from just up and suing the President, because the Separation of Powers checks and works with eachother. If the President is to be tried for violating the Constitution somehow, then so is the Supreme Court for interpreting the Constitution in that way; if the President is to be tried for declaring a madman's war then so is the Legislative Branch for declaring it. The Separation of Powers has nothing to do with separation of blame because the three branches work together in order to keep the government somewhat functional.
That's not what I learned in civics. Yes, the branches of government share some powers, but they also have powers that they alone wield. The president, although he is unable to declare war, is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, so if war crimes are ordered by the president, who do you investigate? Not the Supreme Court or Congress, you investigate the executive branch. And the supreme court's interpretation of the constitution is the final interpretation that decides what is and is not constitutional, so I don't know what you are saying vis-a-vis constitutionality.
There are several Commander in Chiefs in the army as of the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganisation Act of 1986. The title, "Commander in Chief" is reserved for the President, but in terms of actual power, the President can't declare any war crimes without the consent of several people. The government checks itself in every area to prevent these things, and none of these things have happened; based on what ignoramuses charge Bush with ("he declared war! He made torture legal!"), if he were to be put on trial then the entire federal government would be as well.
That's the thing: he doesn't do it. All three do it.
The only way to charge just the President is if he either violates that separation of Powers or he does something irrelevant to his presidency, like what happened to Clinton and Nixon.
-_Rain_-
That's not how it works.
Oh, then please educate me.
What do you mean? If the president had done something worthy of trial that does not mean everyone else in federal government is responsible.
The Separation of Powers prevents people from just up and suing the President, because the Separation of Powers checks and works with eachother. If the President is to be tried for violating the Constitution somehow, then so is the Supreme Court for interpreting the Constitution in that way; if the President is to be tried for declaring a madman's war then so is the Legislative Branch for declaring it. The Separation of Powers has nothing to do with separation of blame because the three branches work together in order to keep the government somewhat functional.
-_Rain_-
That's not what I learned in civics. Yes, the branches of government share some powers, but they also have powers that they alone wield. The president, although he is unable to declare war, is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, so if war crimes are ordered by the president, who do you investigate? Not the Supreme Court or Congress, you investigate the executive branch. And the supreme court's interpretation of the constitution is the final interpretation that decides what is and is not constitutional, so I don't know what you are saying vis-a-vis constitutionality.
There are several Commander in Chiefs in the army as of the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganisation Act of 1986. The title, "Commander in Chief" is reserved for the President, but in terms of actual power, the President can't declare any war crimes without the consent of several people. The government checks itself in every area to prevent these things, and none of these things have happened; based on what ignoramuses charge Bush with ("he declared war! He made torture legal!"), if he were to be put on trial then the entire federal government would be as well.
No, you're wrong. There aren't several commander-in-chiefs of the armed forces, there is one, and that is the president. He has the final word on everything vis-a-vis the armed forces (except declaring war) and no one can override his orders. And even if there were several commander-in-chiefs of the armed forces, they would still all be within the executive branch, so you would still only investigate and prosecute the executive branch. This is basic civics.
The only legitimate charge I can think of is the fact he did nothing about Katrina, before it hit. Even though he was warned that the levies most likely weren't gonna hold. But other than that he hasn't done anything that bad.
The only legitimate charge I can think of is the fact he did nothing about Katrina, before it hit. Even though he was warned that the levies most likely weren't gonna hold. But other than that he hasn't done anything that bad.
That's not his job. That's the major's job and beyond that, the governor's.
Log in to comment