Unlimited Posted February 20, 2004 Report Posted February 20, 2004 Everyone knows that the President of the US is the most important and most respected in the whole world.. But everyone also knows Congress can fire the President if they really wanted. What u guys think about this..? Congress or President, who has more power?
Yupa Posted February 20, 2004 Report Posted February 20, 2004 whichever group has the better combination of intelligence and determination has more power
»CypherJF Posted February 20, 2004 Report Posted February 20, 2004 The 3 branches of government are supposed to be equal. With checks 'n balances in place this ensures that the power is equally shared. However, the Supreme Court has been able to gain a significant amount of power over the last 40 yrs, actually making rulings become laws (essentially)... Well for that matter, all branches have taken a lot of power they shouldn't have. Most recently I'd say, the Executive branch has the most with the Patriot Act, secret courts etc etc, basically anything that involves national security, is subject to w/e... If I were to say, who has the most power, I'd say the President, since he is in control of the military; unlike congress. Congress can only remove the president through impeachment (2/3s of both bodies must agree), if that is if I am remembering the specific gov't details; and/or if the Cabnit says to remove him due to duress. anywho... if anyone wants to quote specific sources that says otherwise, im gonna stay w/ that .. have fun edit: Cons!@#$%^&*ution -- Article 2..."Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. "
»CypherJF Posted February 20, 2004 Report Posted February 20, 2004 uh huh, Akai you must be having fun lol... if ya'll were wondering about my avatar -- the gold fish is mine, and the other portion is splat!!!!!!!'s (who is my bro)... by default its me posting ... he sometimes has a word to say more or less asking questions in the game devel topic
Dav Posted February 20, 2004 Report Posted February 20, 2004 the power lies in congress, the president cannot act umless congress gives him the authority to do so (basiclly the president has littkle power) However as soon as congress gives the go ahead all power in the situation is given to the president making him extreemly piowerfull. The problem with tge US is that bush is an idiot that seems to give a shiyt only about the US (we all iknow iraq being for the people is meerly properganda) and ciongress are a bunch of whiny little wooses that give the go ahead anyway.
»CypherJF Posted February 21, 2004 Report Posted February 21, 2004 Not necessarily. Congress loves and tries to keep everything under their control; however, technically the President has the power. Aka: declare martial law if need be. Congress wouldn't have a say about it, now would they? ... As these new legislations are being passed, definately the Executive branch, without a doubt, will be gaining the majority of the power... As an example of the limiting of the President's power via the Supreme Court -- they said that Clintion could not pocket-line veto portion's of a law. Yup yup. oh btw, not to be mean, next time I'd suggest using a spell checker, cause man... I had a hard time deciphering your last post... Adios. - cyp
SVS Posted February 21, 2004 Report Posted February 21, 2004 Congress controls the budget, so in the end they have the ultimate level of control.
Aileron Posted February 21, 2004 Report Posted February 21, 2004 The problem with tge US is that bush is an idiot that seems to give a shiyt only about the USWhat YOU don't realise is that EVERY world leader in the past, present, and likely the future, only gave, gives, or will give a shiyt about their country, if even that. International acts of charity simply don't exist. The US went into Iraq because we would benefit from a new democracy in the region. France and Germany opposed it because they want terrorists to be as strong as possible without actually helping them. Every action taken by every country in history was selfishly motivated; exceptions are few and far between. Back to the topic, I'd have to say that it is currently hard to decide which of these two is more powerfull. Republicans have a majority in the house, and would have had so in the Senate if some Senators didn't change parties. What we have is close to a Republican Congress with a Republican President. Currently, there is no way to tell. One House supports the President, the other opposes him. It is clear that the Presidency, when supported by the House, is stronger than the Senate.
»CypherJF Posted February 21, 2004 Report Posted February 21, 2004 Currently, there is no way to tell. One House supports the President, the other opposes him. It is clear that the Presidency, when supported by the House, is stronger than the Senate. so true so true
2pac Posted February 21, 2004 Report Posted February 21, 2004 bush can go to -*BAD WORD*- he has monkey balls power
Killing Ape Posted February 21, 2004 Report Posted February 21, 2004 Speaker of the House is extremely powerful, as or more powerful than the vice president and possibly as powerful as the president. Nobody knows who he is though... if I say Dennis Hastert most of you will think i'm talking about a cartoon character.
Aileron Posted February 22, 2004 Report Posted February 22, 2004 That is a problem in the American political system in that nobody cares who gets elected into Congress, despite how much power they have. I wouldn't go as far to say that the SoH has as much power as the President, although I will agree will your statement as is because it gets the point acrossed better.
Dav Posted February 22, 2004 Report Posted February 22, 2004 The problem with tge US is that bush is an idiot that seems to give a shiyt only about the USWhat YOU don't realise is that EVERY world leader in the past, present, and likely the future, only gave, gives, or will give a shiyt about their country, if even that. International acts of charity simply don't exist. The US went into Iraq because we would benefit from a new democracy in the region. France and Germany opposed it because they want terrorists to be as strong as possible without actually helping them. Every action taken by every country in history was selfishly motivated; exceptions are few and far between. Back to the topic, I'd have to say that it is currently hard to decide which of these two is more powerfull. Republicans have a majority in the house, and would have had so in the Senate if some Senators didn't change parties. What we have is close to a Republican Congress with a Republican President. Currently, there is no way to tell. One House supports the President, the other opposes him. It is clear that the Presidency, when supported by the House, is stronger than the Senate. Ok that the cover story, i think poil was the main reason for iraq. Also as far a a more stable middle east goes, thay will get nowhere untill israil is sorted out and that war criminal sharon is eithyer elected out of power of the UN does somthing to interviene. Accually the UN kepps briging israil up but cus the US like israil they vito any resolutions that come up.
Wax Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 The problem with tge US is that bush is an idiot that seems to give a shiyt only about the USWhat YOU don't realise is that EVERY world leader in the past, present, and likely the future, only gave, gives, or will give a shiyt about their country, if even that. International acts of charity simply don't exist. The US went into Iraq because we would benefit from a new democracy in the region. France and Germany opposed it because they want terrorists to be as strong as possible without actually helping them. Every action taken by every country in history was selfishly motivated; exceptions are few and far between. Back to the topic, I'd have to say that it is currently hard to decide which of these two is more powerfull. Republicans have a majority in the house, and would have had so in the Senate if some Senators didn't change parties. What we have is close to a Republican Congress with a Republican President. Currently, there is no way to tell. One House supports the President, the other opposes him. It is clear that the Presidency, when supported by the House, is stronger than the Senate. Ok that the cover story, i think poil was the main reason for iraq. Also as far a a more stable middle east goes, thay will get nowhere untill israil is sorted out and that war criminal sharon is eithyer elected out of power of the UN does somthing to interviene. Accually the UN kepps briging israil up but cus the US like israil they vito any resolutions that come up. I dont think it was completly because of oil. We have a decent amount of it ourselves.
Aileron Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 No, it wasn't about oil. There simply isn't enough of it in Iraq to make it worth it. (Besides even if it was, the arguement that we should have stayed out of Iraq because of motives doesn't follow logically.) The US is getting something much more valuable out of it. Prior to the action, we needed to actively contain him. Containment required constant bombardment. Also, there was a center of anti-US media in the country, and us having to bomb them every week wasn't helping Iraqi opinion. In general, Iraq was simply one big mess of contant problems, and it became easier and less costly in human lives just to take Hussein out directly and be done with it. It was a constant war being fought by the US and the Kurds, that was labeled as peace so that various world governments could act like they were giving Hussein a second chance.
Mr Ekted Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 Big business owns all 3 branches of our government. Money = law.
Aileron Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 Well, yes and no. It starts by what you define "big business" as. There are four parts to every company: workers, customers, investors, and administration. Due to the desire for a good economy, a good politician will be "pro" for the first three. Most of the time the term "big business" is used towards the last one. The problem here is that a capitalist or socialist government does not have the tools necessary to seperate the shaft from the wheat, and to give the government those tools is economically and politically disasterous. Thus, a politician must decide whether to support the business as a whole or dispose of it as a whole. Thus, everyone agrees that a CEO will make a disproportionate amount of money. However, the only way a government can do something about it involve hurting millions of investors, employees, and consumers. So yes, they are in favor of big business as a whole, but against the evils that goes along with big business. They just can't seperate them.
Mr Ekted Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 I am not claiming that politicians make decisions in favor of big business because they feel it is the right thing to do. I am claiming that big business OWNS the president, congress, and judges. They get elected and re-elected (or appointed) because of payoffs. They stay in office because of payoffs. And they stay alive and safe (as well as their families), as long as things go the right way.
MonteZuma Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 Everyone knows that the President of the US is the most important and most respected in the whole world.. But everyone also knows Congress can fire the President if they really wanted. What u guys think about this..? Congress or President, who has more power?The US president is not the most respected person in the world.
Wax Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 Everyone knows that the President of the US is the most important and most respected in the whole world.. But everyone also knows Congress can fire the President if they really wanted. What u guys think about this..? Congress or President, who has more power?The US president is not the most respected person in the world. Then who is?
Dr Brain Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 Everyone knows that the President of the US is the most important and most respected in the whole world.. But everyone also knows Congress can fire the President if they really wanted. What u guys think about this..? Congress or President, who has more power?The US president is not the most respected person in the world. Then who is? The Pope, the Dali Lama or someone similar.
Mr Ekted Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 The Pope How could someone who represents organized religion be respected by anyone?
MonteZuma Posted February 23, 2004 Report Posted February 23, 2004 Yeah. I suspect the pope, the Dalai Lama(sp?), Nelson Mandella, Kofi Annan (sp?), QEII (maybe?) and a host of other people are respected by more people than the US president (or any other serving politician in any country). -*BAD WORD*-...even Bin Laden probably has more supporters than Bush. I haven't even mentioned musicians and sport stars.... Monte.
Recommended Posts