Advising the Director and OPLA staff and 4 non-health related professional licensing boards, including Barber and Cosmetology; Funeral Directors; Architecture and Interior Design; and Real Estate on their responsibilities under applicable District of Columbia laws and rules,
Those four groups have something in common but I'm too scared to guess what!
It's not as simple as you make it out to be. While it indeed seems that the President holds a significant amount of power, the true reason is because Congress has not exercised any of their true checks against him in a long time. Because for the last decade or so the Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress, they were very sympathetic to the Bush's Republican ideals. There are many factors, but the main reason he has been able to do so much is that his party controlled both the Legislature and the Executive Branch. This is why recently the Democrats won control of both houses. Voters hoped that they would bring change to the unmitigated control the Republicans have enjoyed. However, many of the promises that the Democrats promised during their campaign have fallen through. It's a very complicated matter and requires extensive knowledge of American politics which is why I really don't like it when non-Americans who don't know the intricacies of the system criticize it.
I guess the roots of it issue is not the System itself, but rather the strength that political parties have gained in the past century. It's said that one of the major enemies of the Constitution are political parties and James Madison discussed it rather extensively in his Federalist No. 10 essay.
Yes, you're right, and I've said so before: I am in absolutely no position to criticize the American political system on an academic level. However, a political system should never be judged by how well it *could* be used, because then you could take any system and it'll be great. You always have to look at how well the system actually does. I will use an example from German history: The constitution of the Weimar Republic was a lot more democratic than the current Grundgesetz. However, the Weimar constitution fell victim to boneheaded people not cooperating and Nazis exploiting the weaknesses of the system. Hitler did not seize power in a coup (he tried that in 1923, and it was hilarious), he got his power in a perfectly legal way. After WWII, the current constitution was created having in mind what brought the last one down, so now, we have a lot of mechanisms that specifically exist in order to protect civil- and human rights. So far, it works not perfectly, but pretty good. The question is if that is because the system is good or because there are still survivors of concentration camps around and the memory of WWII is still alive. In other words, the system will have to prove itself in the future, and we'll see whether the system is a good one or society has simply used it correctly. I'm not clear on that, because on one hand, I watch the constitution protect itself, but on the other hand, many things are already starting to crumble. For example the fact that German soldiers are in foreign countries that haven't attacked us, which is not where they belong. Something that breaks any system is corruption, and we have a big problem with that here in Germany, and I believe so do you in the US.
I believe the Supreme Court does not actually have to have a case taken before them to strike down a law as unconstitutional.
Wrong.
since the idiot-king of America appointed as many loyalists to the justice department and made some awful choices for the supreme court early on, they are less likely to actually strike down laws related to his his assholeish agenda.
And are you going to complain in the same manner when a Democratic president appoints justices who share liberal viewpoints? I love how some people hate our constitutional processes when they don't get what they want. Last time I checked, that's what a democracy is all about. The president appoints justices that are in line with his ideology. Republicans to it. Democrats do it. Get over it.
Why can't the liberals spend less time whining and more time actually doing something? Even during the Clinton years, the Republicans got their stuff together. I just don't see the Democrats doing the same. (And for the record, I'm a moderate.)
The Democrats are going to win the next election because Bush is such a bonehead, not because they have anything great to offer.
I wouldn't complain. Know why? Because at the core, every neocon in this country is a self-serving, evil, and cares as little about the rest of the populace and what is actually good for the greatest number of people. If every single justice on the supreme court was progressive, I'd be happy. I'd know that the chance of someone getting tossed in some prison somewhere for being accused of terrorist activities when in reality all they had was a muslim name would be nil. I'd know that we wouldn't be secretly OKing torture while claiming we weren't. I'd know that our top legal people wouldn't be put there because of political ties, but instead because of their ability in the legal arena. I'd know that we would not be setting up fake news conferences to make us look better during disasters.
Balanced? Probably not. But the neo-conservative republicans have done their share of fucking things up to near-beyond repair nationally and internationally. They have no intention of making aything better for anyone but themselves. They don't DESERVE a say for being so selfish, evil, and for intentionally fucking up everything for everyone else.
Because at the core, every neocon in this country is a self-serving, evil, and cares as little about the rest of the populace and what is actually good for the greatest number of people.
ArtBoy, you are so emotionally invested in this argument that you have lost all sense of objectivity. There are good conservatives, and there a bad conservatives. There are good Democrats, and bad Democrats.
What's really scary is how intolerant you are towards the other side of a debate. Once you assume the moral high-ground, you're doomed to make bad judgments. Frankly, you're doing just what you hate about the conservatives.
Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways, Lord Artboy. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up a withdrawal timetable in Congress, or given you clairvoyance enough to find Osama Bin Laden -*urk*!
Comments
Congrats on the job though! Give 'em hell!
However, a political system should never be judged by how well it *could* be used, because then you could take any system and it'll be great. You always have to look at how well the system actually does. I will use an example from German history:
The constitution of the Weimar Republic was a lot more democratic than the current Grundgesetz. However, the Weimar constitution fell victim to boneheaded people not cooperating and Nazis exploiting the weaknesses of the system. Hitler did not seize power in a coup (he tried that in 1923, and it was hilarious), he got his power in a perfectly legal way. After WWII, the current constitution was created having in mind what brought the last one down, so now, we have a lot of mechanisms that specifically exist in order to protect civil- and human rights. So far, it works not perfectly, but pretty good. The question is if that is because the system is good or because there are still survivors of concentration camps around and the memory of WWII is still alive. In other words, the system will have to prove itself in the future, and we'll see whether the system is a good one or society has simply used it correctly. I'm not clear on that, because on one hand, I watch the constitution protect itself, but on the other hand, many things are already starting to crumble. For example the fact that German soldiers are in foreign countries that haven't attacked us, which is not where they belong.
Something that breaks any system is corruption, and we have a big problem with that here in Germany, and I believe so do you in the US.
Balanced? Probably not. But the neo-conservative republicans have done their share of fucking things up to near-beyond repair nationally and internationally. They have no intention of making aything better for anyone but themselves. They don't DESERVE a say for being so selfish, evil, and for intentionally fucking up everything for everyone else.
What's really scary is how intolerant you are towards the other side of a debate. Once you assume the moral high-ground, you're doomed to make bad judgments. Frankly, you're doing just what you hate about the conservatives.