X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 4 Oct 1992 07:54:40 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Presidents

< I don't ever remember seeing this on this list, but what are the
< qualities that a president should have?
<
< Evelyn Duncan

Right now, after a series of vetoes by George the First,
I think that it is extremely important that a president
realize he was elected PRESIDENT, not KING, and that he
is to be a leader, who works with two co-equal branches
of government, and that it is the basic responsibility
of the CONGRESS not the executive branch to enact the
will of the people.  The executive branch is supposed
to enforce the laws, and the judicial branch is supposed
to be an independent branch of government, not a bunch
of political hacks.

   fine, as far as it goes. please remember that the president,
  however disgusting you find him, was also elected by the people
  of the country, and one of his *duties* is to act as a check on
  congress. you have heard of "checks and balances", haven't you?
  and if anyone is acting like a kingin d.c., it would be people
  like foley and mitchell. the congress has had the opportunity to
  override every last one of those vetoes. they haven't. where do
  you get the "will of the people" thing, then? george bush is there
  because he represents the will of the people better than the hack
  the dems put up last time around. he would be in violation of the
  spirit of his oath of office if he acted as a rubber stamp, as you
  seem to argue he should.

Now after 12 years of Reagan-Bush this seems to be
totally forgotten.  The Judicial branch has been merged
with the executive branch, and the Congress was never
led, it was ignored, subverted, lied to, blackmailed,
when it finally (far too late) chafed at being a rubber
stamp.

   utter crap. if the judicial branch *had* been merged with the
  executive branch, abortion would now be illegal in this country.
  the executive branch has gotten most of what it wanted from the
  court, true, but that is the result of having owned the presidency
  for the last 12 years or so. btw, the senate has had veto power
  over nominees to the court all this time. they have used it. if
  it is your contention that only "right-thinking" people should be
  appointed to the court, well, i suggest that you start by giving
  the democratic nomination to sensible, moderate persons rather than
  the most liberal fools you can find.

And the executive branch has not been enforcing the laws,
they have been subverting the laws.  They have not been
spending money given them by Congress for the proper
purposes if they didn't agree with the law they were
supposed to be enforcing.

I would have thought that that was an impeachable
offense, actually.  The president takes an oath to uphold
the constitution.  And so does everyone else, supreme
court justics for example.

  so let them impeach. they have the votes. the house has been
 run by democrats for almost 40 years. let them take it to the
 supreme court. they can veto new justices at will, and impeach
 justices if necessary.

Well, I ramble.  But a basic understanding of our constitution
on the part of the president would be nice.

   i would submit that *your* understanding of the constitution is
  flawed, at least in practice. i would also guess that a democratic
  president would provoke cheers of approval for the same actions.
  your post reeks of sour grapes, and sounds like something from a
  sore loser. and as for your sig line; it sounds an awful lot like
  the complaints of fdr about "nine old men", and the "impeach earl
  warren" movement. messing with the court will not affect the court,
  and you'll only hurt yourself.

===============================================================================
Ginny                                  Impeach Thomas!
metze@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu              Impeach the Rehnquist 5, 6 or 7!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress
today?  It wouldn't even get out of Committee."  F. Lee Bailey, 1967.
===============================================================================

***********

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU