WVBT Blog Landing Page
 

aksjfd's Blog

by aksjfd from phoenix

Last Post 165 days, 12 hours Ago


While watching the election results, my bf asked me why it was such a big deal to have a 60-40 split in the Senate. Today, I read a post saying that Democrats have had 'control' of Congress and therefore should have already enacted change. Therefore, I thought it may be a good idea to review how they system of checks and balances work.

All branches, Executive, Lesgislative and Judicial are equal. None is more powerful than the other. To keep this balance in check, the forefather gave the Judicial branch lifelong appointments. This way they couldn't be voted out for upholding the Constitution. THey coulodn't be removed from office by the Pres for upholding the Constitution. The Legislative branch has the power to make laws and over rule the President. However, to keep that power in check, they must have a TWO THIRDS MAJORITY in favor of the override of all vetos. The Executive branch has the 'final review' on all bills and shapes foreign policy, to keep that in check, the Pres. vetos can be overruled and the other branches can declare things like the Patriot Act as unconstiutional, etc.

 

Since our focus is the Democratically controlled Congress, let's focus on their strenghts and weaknesses. The Democrats had a majority with 51 Senators beginning in JANUARY OF 2007. Unfortunately, in just 1 year and 10 months, they have not been able to get enough Republicans on their side to make up the 16 Senator deficit they have in order to overrule the President, a Republican, when he vetos their bills. The same is true in the House. Sure, the Democrats had a majority, but not enough Republicans are in favor of change, so they did not have the votes there either.

 

So, you can see that the Democrats have not had the ABILITY to inflict change until 2009 when they have a much more commanding majority and a President who agrees with them (hence the 'blank check' charge by Republicans). Keep in mind, though, that the REPUBLICANS had the MAJORITY AND THE PRESIDENT FROM 2001--2006 which means they had complete control of the direction of the country. And, I'd like to know why you guys either 1. think they did such a great job or 2. why aren't you mad that your party did such a poop job?

5 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 5
Page 1 of 1
drtbkr read my blog
Nov 7, 2008 | 2:11 PM

"the Democrats have not had the ABILITY to inflict change"

I love your use of the word "inflict" with it's negative connotation. How appropriate.

aksjfd read my blog view my photos
Nov 7, 2008 | 2:43 PM

drt---huh?

KenOfAZ read my blog view my photos
Nov 7, 2008 | 10:50 PM

BOTH parties are idiots. Bush was a lousy president. The only reason he was reelected was because he ran against a bigger loser (John Kerry) than he was. Bush and the republicans should have voted to drill our own oil when they had nobody to stand in their way. They should also have gotten serious about the illegals. If the illegals didn't send tens of billions of dollars home to Mexico every year, for all of those years, we might not be in the mess we are in. But, all in all, the US was doing pretty well for the first six or more years of Bush considering how the september 11 murders ruined the airline and vacation/hotel/resort industry. Then all of a sudden the economy took a big defication. Right about the time the democrats started calling a lot of the shots.
The last time the democrats had control of the white house and congress was when Jimmy Carter was in. Remember the soaring inflation, high interest rates, lack of respect from other countries, etc? Maybe you were too young to remember. That is why Carter was a one term president. Obama will be too.

_CuCulCoN_ read my blog view my photos
Nov 8, 2008 | 11:48 AM

Only time will TELL.

drtbkr read my blog
Nov 9, 2008 | 2:26 PM

Are you not aware of the negative connotation of the word "inflict?" Things like damage and pain are inflicted, never good things.

Webster's dictionary defines the word "inflict" as "to cause (something unpleasant) to be endured."

You used this word in reference to the change the Dems intend to bring. Since this change will likely be something unpleasant to be endured by the American people, and be painful and damaging, I found your choice of the word "inflict" to be both appropriate and amusing.

Now do you get it?

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




aksjfd

Thanks you, America, for voting out the criminals and voting in the compassionate, socially and fiscally responsible Democrats. Keep up the good work and do the same in 2010. Be scared of the evangelicals; they are on the rise and are no different than Muslim extremists.

Member Since: 4/11/2008