Discuss opinion on commander-in-chief

[morelos]

my opinion: the head of the executive branch of government (US presidency) should not also be the head of the US armed forces.

i think it's missing one check and balance of power. perhaps only all three head branches, in agreement together, should be able to activate main military force.

~ dan ~

 

[Pachyderm]

my opinion: the head of the executive branch of government (US presidency) should not also be the head of the US armed forces.

i think it's missing one check and balance of power. perhaps only all three head branches, in agreement together, should be able to activate main military force.

~ dan ~

However naive I might be, I think there should be a whole nother branch, or another person..kinda like a partnership beyond the vice presidency. A separate chief who has more experience in the military and head to head combat than the --uh (cough) president--I definately don't think someone who was on drunken leave from the war he was in, shouldn't have the power to declare war on others....especially for revenge..
Besides doesn't the presidency have more to deal with, with social and economic woes of our times?

 

[voiceofreason]

my opinion: the head of the executive branch of government (US presidency) should not also be the head of the US armed forces.

i think it's missing one check and balance of power. perhaps only all three head branches, in agreement together, should be able to activate main military force.

~ dan ~

Agreed.

It is too much power for one man(woman), and way too much power for one doofus...

 

[morelos]

i forgot to also note that the person in charge of the military should be elected SEPARATELY, as opposed to being the secretary of defense or someone else who is appointed.

~ dan ~

 

[DanGeo23]

I think we need to lessen the power of the Supreme Courts Czech/Balance.. I think they have too much power...

 

[morelos]

I think we need to lessen the power of the Supreme Courts Czech/Balance.. I think they have too much power...

you've got to be fucking kidding me.

the supreme court is already the weakest of the three heads of branches. they cannot actively do anything, and they have no power of enforcement.

why do you want to FURTHER weaken them?

~ dan ~

 

[DanGeo23]

The President and Congreess may agree on a law..........but the Supreme Court can declare a law unconsitutional... I feel that the Supreme Court interprets laws too liberally... I think that they try to debunk laws based on who passed them D or R .. not by their constitutionality...

 

[morelos]

The President and Congreess may agree on a law..........but the Supreme Court can declare a law unconsitutional... I feel that the Supreme Court interprets laws too liberally... I think that they try to debunk laws based on who passed them D or R .. not by their constitutionality...

the supreme court can do NOTHING until a case is brought to them.

did you think plessy v fergusson was great or something? should brown v BOE, topeka not have happened? was roe v wade too liberal for you?

the supreme court did a great thing by declaring an anti-gay-marriage law unconstitutional. why? first off, it went that high. second, because there is no provision WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION for taking away that right. in fact, if you'll notice, the constitution is designed to protect your rights and not to enable people to take them away.

you need to move away from arkansas, or at least stop watching just the local news.

~ dan ~

people like you brought us hr3920.

http://www.fruzzetti.org:8080/hr3920

 

[DanGeo23]

I think that they try to debunk laws based on who passed them D or R .. not by their constitutionality...

 

[morelos]

interesting that you say that, considering 6 of the 9 are R and have been installed by other Rs, yet they still ruled no gay marriage ban.

generally, the supreme court has always ruled in the most just manner for the time period.

also, you really didn't respond at all to my whole statement; you just repeated yourself.

polly wanna cracker?