Political Posturing

Over here, as you put it, our current President does tend to legislate through the Oval office, using the Executive order-- which isn't really addressed in the Constitution, and was NOT designed to be used as it is being used. The Executive branch is not supposed to legislate, because it circumvents the will of the people-- but if the President does and is not challenged, then it continues. With over 1000 executive orders so far (more than all previous ones written), we have a legislating President--unconstitutionally. Our president does have the veto, and the veto can be overridden by a 3/4 majority of our legislators-- a good thing. Our politicians can have stances opposite those of their leaders as well, which is good-- but our congress is under a mandate, one they rarely follow, to vote the will of the people who elected them. I, Personally, read every executive order that comes out-- and I believe every American citizen should. I believe other people elsewhere should ALSO read them, and our laws, to get a better clue about what is really going on down here, instead of seeing things through the eyes of the media. Under those executive orders, He can now take my farm, for instance--with little pretext, and without congressional approval, and of course no redress. I believe in term limits, absolutely-- because even the most honorable leader can get power hungry and go bad, and be difficult if not impossible to get rid of. I also believe that American politicians in particular, and politicians in general, should be held legally accountable for all campaign promises and effects from the legislation they pass--meaning when our dearly beloved leaders pass laws that are designed, and obviously so, to put people out of business or disenfranchise citizens, they should be tossed out of office and into jail--and their assets seized for reparations to injured parties. I believe that all candidates for office should have to release ALL of their private records, all the way back to high school, for examination by the people. I believe that no Executive official should be able to appoint cabinet members or advisers with criminal records, as well. And I believe the people as a whole should be able to impeach an elected official or seated Supreme Court Justice, should Congress choose not to do so. Senators and Representatives have rarely impeached a sitting president, even when that president SHOULD be impeached for abrogating their oath of office or other malfeasance-- and when they have moved to impeach, they rarely follow through. The WHOLE PEOPLE should be able to lodge a vote of no confidence, and their representatives should then be compelled to impeach, with the proceedings entirely public-- and the burden of proof of innocence should be on the defendant, not the plaintiffs, for once. Elected officials should be held to a very high level of accountability and behavior. The antics of many of our presidents here, past and present, are a disgrace.

That sounds like a good idea. I hope it is implemented. I do not like some of the antics of the American presidents and Clinton being an adluterer and aso if the president were a Republican he cannot get away with anyting, but if he is a democrat, they give him a pass. It does sound horrible the threat of you may be losing your home because the presdient says so. I know here in Canada, we are trying to make home possession a right and get a defend your castle law or something like that. Sorry but the type on this computer is small and do not want to increase the size or look for my glasses.

The people of the United States have spoken as a whole and more of them voted for the President that against him. He won by 3 million votes. It's not like Bush versus Gore.

What we do here with our senate might perhaps be able to be modified. Each election, except in very special circumstances, half of the senators are up for re-election, so that they get in effect a minimum term of 8 years once elected. If we then say 8 years is the limit, at least we have in each parliament half the senate with a good deal of experience. Beyond that, I believe, they simply become entrenched and their policy positions along with them. We could easily apply both the half election and the time limits to both houses, bringing in fresh approaches every 4 years which are balanced by the experience already there. Maybe we could extend limits to 12 years and make that expeience even more effective. Long terms simply allow more room for subtle corruption, but it also tends to lead to an approach to representation which is moe concerned with survival than with governing. Shorter terms lead to the possibility that politicians will be more inclined to make the difficult decisions if they aren't concerned with re-election in their last term. Might have been a bit muddled there, but I think I got the important points covered. Lash