Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Somewhere, I hope/think, I still have a number of items from that election. One thing I know is around is the "promissory note" that was made up by the Nixon group saying "heres the $1000 that McGovern promised."
Do you think the people who came up with the name realized what its initials were?
So you deny that each branch has specific and designated powers? Tell me ... Does the Judicial Branch make law? Does the President make law? Can the President change law? Can the court change law?
Where did you get your education from; i.e., where did you learn this.
The two houses of Congress and the President's veto power is the system of "check and balance." But the Congress may overturn a President's veto.
The courts do not act as a "check and balance." The courts have no power to act independently.
Sorry, but you're incorrect.
Sorry dude------------ you are incorrect. Just because the 3 branches have specific duties does not negate that each can do things that stymie the other.
President can do an EO, to accomplish some things that might normally be done by the congress, but that EO can be undone by the courts.
Obama had a couple of EO overturned by the court, which I am sure you celebrated.
Maybe you should change your screen name and drop the "no" as much of what you spout is nonsense,
Sorry dude------------ you are incorrect. Just because the 3 branches have specific duties does not negate that each can do things that stymie the other.
President can do an EO, to accomplish some things that might normally be done by the congress, but that EO can be undone by the courts.
Obama had a couple of EO overturned by the court, which I am sure you celebrated.
Maybe you should change your screen name and drop the "no" as much of what you spout is nonsense,
Good post. To expand on it a bit ....
Legislative Branch
Checks on the Executive
Impeachment power (House)
Trial of impeachments (Senate)
Selection of the President (House) and Vice President (Senate) in the case of no majority of electoral votes
May override Presidential vetoes
Senate approves departmental appointments
Senate approves treaties and ambassadors
Approval of replacement Vice President
Power to declare war
Power to enact taxes and allocate funds
President must, from time-to-time, deliver a State of the Union address
Checks on the Judiciary
Senate approves federal judges
Impeachment power (House)
Trial of impeachments (Senate)
Power to initiate constitutional amendments
Power to set courts inferior to the Supreme Court
Power to set jurisdiction of courts
Power to alter the size of the Supreme Court
Checks on the Legislature - because it is bicameral, the Legislative branch has a degree of self-checking.
Bills must be passed by both houses of Congress
House must originate revenue bills
Neither house may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house
All journals are to be published
Executive Branch
Checks on the Legislature
Veto power
Vice President is President of the Senate
Commander in chief of the military
Recess appointments
Emergency calling into session of one or both houses of Congress
May force adjournment when both houses cannot agree on adjournment
Compensation cannot be diminished
Checks on the Judiciary
Power to appoint judges
Pardon power
Checks on the Executive
Vice President and Cabinet can vote that the President is unable to discharge his duties
Judicial Branch
Checks on the Legislature
Judicial review
Seats are held on good behavior
Compensation cannot be diminished
Checks on the Executive
Judicial review
Chief Justice sits as President of the Senate during presidential impeachment
Somewhere, I hope/think, I still have a number of items from that election. One thing I know is around is the "promissory note" that was made up by the Nixon group saying "heres the $1000 that McGovern promised."
Do you think the people who came up with the name realized what its initials were?
I always thought they did.
Liddy and Haldeman were the kind of guys who'd like it.
G Gordon Liddy...probably the scariest guy who ever served in the White House.
Senator Collins is on Morning Joe now, and she said when she was an intern during Watergate, amidst of all the controversy things were getting done. However, this current administration is not showing leadership on what it wants to get done. There hasn't been any policy proposals for the legislature to work on. Just controversy after controversy.
Nixon was a crook too. But Nixon was a MUCH smarter crook than Trump. Plus, once you got past all the layers of corruption, unlike Trump, deep down Nixon truly loved the country. Only problem was that he loved power as least as much, he does have that lust for power in common with DJT.
Another big difference was that the great majority of members of Congress of both parties were more centrist and less polarized; there was more bipartisan cooperation. Also in that time things moved a lot slower, when data/news had to move through TV, radio and printed media. Didn't have the frenetic pace we have today.
But the biggest difference of course is that we are talking about potentially treasonous acts with Trump with ties to Russia, an enemy state. It would have been hard to imagine Nixon ever colluding with an enemy.
Last edited by GearHeadDave; 05-18-2017 at 11:29 AM..
It doesn't compare. So far there are no crimes or evidence. The vast array of Clinton crimes are the worst in history, far worse than anything Nixon did.
It doesn't compare. So far there are no crimes or evidence. The vast array of Clinton crimes are the worst in history, far worse than anything Nixon did.
There is enough smoke for it to be investigated, there's enough smoke that members of BOTH parties in DC are starting to see that. Just because you don't see the evidence right now, does't mean it doesn't exist. Let the investigation play out before you say there isn't any evidence.
As for your comment on Clinton...she's been cleared. Move on, she is not, nor will ever be President of the United States. Stop making the "but Clinton" statements a part of your argument, it's not relevant at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
