jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (30 posts)

Have we elected a King?

  1. jamesrk profile image33
    jamesrkposted 4 years ago

    Have we elected a King?

    Our president should serve our country. After all we (the people) pay his salary. But has he become a king to do whatever he wishes?

  2. dashingscorpio profile image87
    dashingscorpioposted 4 years ago

    Thus far he hasn't done much of anything that rises to the level of being a "king" in any traditional sense. Everything for most part has to go through congress and the Supreme court determines whether or not a law is constitutional or not. We also have term limits of up to 8 years for a president. There is no need to panic. Whether one likes or dislikes a president he or she is only in office for a certain amount of time. Kings stay in power until death and have (absolute) power.
    Having said that (every president) has limited "executive order" privileges! When George W. Bush was in office Democrats cried foul over his decisions and now that Obama is in office Republicans cry foul over his decisions. I suppose that is the purpose of an "opposition party", oppose whatever the other side wants to do.
    However in the past both parties actually came up with alternative solutions to the nation's problems. Today "party loyalty" is more important than doing what is best for the country overall. Neither party wants the nation to have a (booming economy) while the "other party" is in power. The fear is it will lead to the party in office being re-elected!
    Therefore we have moved away from historically "coming together" as a nation in times of crisis to get things done; (both) parties have chosen to make getting elected and re-elected more important than solving problems!
    If Republicans continue to only have an agenda of undoing whatever Obama has done it's very likely in two years we will have president Hilary Clinton. Someone from the Republican party has to be bold enough to say, "Here is (my plan) for dealing with immigration, creating jobs, dealing with the uninsured and cutting the deficit." 
    America deserves to have options! It is the job of the opposition party to present alternative "solutions". Slamming the other guy's efforts only makes you popular with the base but it will not be enough to win a general election. There must be a plan!

    1. lovemychris profile image62
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      This is not a "both party" problem, it is  Republican party problem. Until that is admitted, we never fix it. Democrats had no choice. McConnell said his goal was to stop Obama. Period. That is not governing, that is voter nullification, as WE voted

    2. dashingscorpio profile image87
      dashingscorpioposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      lovemychris, You are right it's a Republican party issue (this time).  However anyone who is not blind to party loyalty can see that neither party has ever stood on "holy ground". (Both) parties have always tried to make the other look bad!

    3. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It's not a Republican party issue. It's a Dem issue. Distraction from Obamacare diaster and pack the courts to avert successful challenges to policies. Wake up. Dems did the same under Bush but the GOP had the foresight not to invoke this option.

    4. ashtonspen profile image73
      ashtonspenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Great analysis dashingscorpio.

    5. dashingscorpio profile image87
      dashingscorpioposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      SassySue1963, It's a Republican issue in the sense that they're the "opposition party" while the Democrat party hold the office of president. When Bush was president the Democrats were the "opposition party". Hopefully this explanation is clearer.

  3. profile image0
    SassySue1963posted 4 years ago

    The question has already been answered really:
    Circa 2005 when a GOP Senator talked about the nuclear option, this is what other Senators had to say:
    "“The threat to change Senate rules is a raw abuse of power and will destroy the very checks and balances our founding fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government,” Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in 2005"
    "Sen. Barack Obama added in 2005: “I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness … I believe some of my colleagues propose this rules change because they can get away with it rather than because they know it’s good for our democracy."
    "“The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster – if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate – then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse,” Barack Obama, 2005
    "“You cannot change the Senate rules by a pure majority vote,” then-Sen. Biden said in 2005. Oops! Guess that makes the little move um...unconstitutional? Big surprise there.
    It is still all those things they railed against in 2005. This Administration no longer represents ALL Americans as they have removed the minority say. It only represents those that agree with them.
    Make no mistake, this is a power grab, just as it would have been in 2005, to set the courts to push through their leftist agenda.
    No balance of power and no democracy exists when the minority's voice is silenced.
    Americans better wake up and step up before we are a pure dictatorship.

    1. dashingscorpio profile image87
      dashingscorpioposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      As long as we have term limits, congress, the Supreme court, and free elections America will never become a "pure dictatorship". Democrats claimed the same thing when Ronald Reagan wanted line item veto power to remove "pork" from bills.

    2. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      All Americans, regardless of party, should be concerned. This is one party silencing another. Removing their say in our checks & balances. You really don't understand what loading up the court could do do you? Removing any challenge to anything .

    3. lovemychris profile image62
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      They don't want challenge to the right wing packing THEY have done! Bush put 4 in himself. THEY need checking!

    4. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      All appointments went through normal rules of the Senate under Bush. The Dems did the same thing with blocking them. Hypocrites all of them.

    5. lovemychris profile image62
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      If Dems blocked them, how'd they get through?
      Do you know that they blocked 1/2 of ALL nominees in our history EVER? That's 230 yrs, and they did the same in 5.
      Oh yea...that's normal. Should be obvious. In fact, is. Hatred and Obstruction, not gvt.

    6. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Are you aware that the Senate has not even attempted to confirm anyone? That this is a pre-power play before even trying? Find one blocked confirmation this year.

    7. lovemychris profile image62
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Well exactly!
      McConnell said he would  block any nomination no matter who it was.
      And that is what he has done. What kind of egomaniac does he have to be? And Boehner holds the immigration fate in his hands. For losing an election, they sure powerful

    8. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      McConnell never said that and it isn't just his vote btw. They never even tried chris. Admit it. It's a power grab plain & simple.Boehner still holds it & this isn't going to help that cause.

    9. lovemychris profile image62
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Lindsey Graham said it too! and it's not a power grab, it's stopping one! Dems won, Dems rule. Simple. Bush won, Bush ruled. And NO ONE did this crap.He got War, tax cuts, torture, and Christian gvt. WE suffered then, and still do. Your turn.

    10. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Like I said, you're wrong. They did block appts. That is why it was discussed in 2005. Study it before you keep saying it isn't so. The rest has nothing to do with the nuclear option.

    11. junkseller profile image84
      junksellerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      SS, Cornelia Pillard, Robert Wilkins, Patricia Millet, Mel Watt...that's 4 in just the past 30 days. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more, so not sure what you are talking about when you say they haven't tried.

    12. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      They never voted on them. They said they'd fall short of 60. Plus the Dems blocked over 50 under Bush yet still had all that to say about the nuclear option. Hypocrites.

    13. lovemychris profile image62
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Obama said no one is blameless, however, the Republicans have halted the workings of gvt. This because THEY have most appointees right now, due to Bush. They dont want Dems being equal-they want stop Ds from gvt.All prez appt.:it in Constitution.

    14. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Um chris. the govt shutdown & appointees have nothing in common. I've already proven to you that the Dems blocked over 50 appointees under Bush. Same deal, different party. One elected a power grab, one declined it.

    15. lovemychris profile image62
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Not the same at all. Votes were taken when Dem blocked. Repubs stall and stall. It is called judicial emergency, and Americans suffer. Powet grab is R part.Attempting to prevent fair and equal representation. Rs have majority and we need equal rep!

    16. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      lol It's exactly the same. Did the exact same thing. blocked, fillibustered and stalled under Bush. Exactly the same. Nope. Was a power grab then & is a power grab now.

    17. lovemychris profile image62
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Its not the same whatsoever. Democrats were not in charge of the House, and did not decide to bring it to a vote or not. It wa R house, senate and prez.Diff is-Dems have votes, but cant get it to floor. Ds did not have votes back then-they do now.

    18. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      alright, done when u don't even understand what the nuclear option is. It is only a Senate matter. it is exactly the same thing that the Dems did under Bush.

    19. lovemychris profile image62
      lovemychrisposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      And done when you cant see the diffetence! Rs policy is to block everything that comes from Obama. Not on the principle, but on order to to "gum up the works".Bush got 4 out of 5 of his thru, in proper time. How about now? Not the same at all.

    20. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Okay, thanks dashing. I understand what you meant then.It would have been bad for the country then & is bad for the country now. Point I'm trying to make to chris. Power grab is a power grab no matter the party doing it.

  4. bethperry profile image91
    bethperryposted 4 years ago

    Not yet. It will depend on if he can cajole enough political support to get term limits lifted. I don't see that happening any time soon. But I would be (pleasantly) surprised if it does NOT happen someday in my own lifetime. It may be when a Dem is in the WH, it may be when a Rep takes reign, can't predict. All I know is if the folks of Oz don't take preventive measures now, they might as well open the parapets to the flying monkeys and kiss the Emerald City goodbye forever.

  5. profile image0
    Larry Wallposted 4 years ago

    The Constitution limits the President to serving two terms. It was a tradition until Roosevelt was elected to four terms. Now it is part of the Supreme Law Of The Land. Senators and Representatives do not have term limits and probably never will. Rules in the House and Senate have changed constantly over the years. By reducing decisions to simple majorities, the parties will have to start talking to each other, because there are people in both parties (not as many as I would like) that make decisions on the merits of the issue or the qualifications of the appointee. Thus, there will always be a swing group or groups--one on fiscal issues, another on health issues, and so on. Thus, with only a majority vote require, a political party with more than a majority cannot be assured to having their way if they do not work to reach a compromise with the Democrats.

    Obama is Black. That bothers some people. He has done nothing (read the whole sentence) that would indicate that he has any intent or desire to change the constitution. He has, as he should , attempted to use the powers and authority entrusted to him to push the agenda on which he was elected. Do you want a President that would do anything less? Do you want a President that gives us the first time he loses a vote? I don't. Even if I did not vote for him and even if I do not agree with his appointees or executive decisions, I want a President the recognizes and performs his function as a leader. If he shows weakness, we should vote him out of office if there is the opportunity and if it is in the second term, the political parties in the House and Senate need to come up with a workable coalition that will serve the people and not the agendas of the major political parties.

 
working