Thread: "Unitary Executive" or Traditional Checks and Balances?

Which system do you prefer the traditional system of checks and balances written into the Constitution and which has been practiced relatively successfully for 220 years or the new "unitary executive" system which proposed virtually unchecked presidential power that has been operating since Bush came to power?

Glad to see at least one other person here respects the traditinal system which has been so badly disrupted by Bush's assertions of "unitary executive" power not found in the Constitution.

I think pretty much everyone is gonna vote for the first one....is this thread just too get people worked up? huh? HUH? IS IT?!?!?

Originally Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes

I think pretty much everyone is gonna vote for the first one....is this thread just too get people worked up? huh? HUH? IS IT?!?!?

Who me? Are you talkng to me? :booty:

People may mark it that way. However, there are several here who regularly promote and defend policies adopted unde "unitary executive" powers (read massive and unconstitutional power grab by Bushco). So, if those poeple pick one and it is the "traditional" option, they are apparently lying.

Really dig your new avatar BTW.

Thankyaverymuch.

Originally Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes

Thankyaverymuch.

YAR!!!!! :laughing:

Let's be fair. When Truman decided to send troops into Korea, that's when Congress' power to declare war was effectively usurped. Since then, we have seen a steady stream of examples of presidents maintaining that authority. And what's the argument? That if a president doesn't have that kind of authority that our military won't be able to respond quickly enough when needed? That they would have to wait for Congress to debate and fight it out? Hey, wait a second! That could take FOREVER! We'd hardly EVER get to go to war!

...er, I mean....

Originally Posted by splansing

Let's be fair. When Truman decided to send troops into Korea, that's when Congress' power to declare war was effectively usurped. Since then, we have seen a steady stream of examples of presidents maintaining that authority. And what's the argument? That if a president doesn't have that kind of authority that our military won't be able to respond quickly enough when needed? That they would have to wait for Congress to debate and fight it out? Hey, wait a second! That could take FOREVER! We'd hardly EVER get to go to war!

...er, I mean....

Bravo. Very green post.

Originally Posted by splansing

Let's be fair. When Truman decided to send troops into Korea, that's when Congress' power to declare war was effectively usurped. Since then, we have seen a steady stream of examples of presidents maintaining that authority. And what's the argument? That if a president doesn't have that kind of authority that our military won't be able to respond quickly enough when needed? That they would have to wait for Congress to debate and fight it out? Hey, wait a second! That could take FOREVER! We'd hardly EVER get to go to war!

...er, I mean....

War is too important to be left to the Politicians.

- General Jack D. Ripper
( from Dr. Strangelove, paraphrasing French WW1 PM Georges Clemenceau)

Originally Posted by Distressed American

Which system do you prefer the traditional system of checks and balances written into the Constitution and which has been practiced relatively successfully for 220 years or the new "unitary executive" system which proposed virtually unchecked presidential power that has been operating since Bush came to power?

Where does Bush propose this "unitary executive" nonsense?