Comments on: HOW DYSFUNCTIONAL IS OUR GOVERNMENT?

By: M. Wilcox

M. Wilcox — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 06:52:29 +0000

Vice president of the US is a legislative not an executive office and only serves a ceremonial role in the Executive,he presides over the Senate and has the tie breaking vote.From the Senates own website:
vice president - Under the Constitution, the Vice President serves as President of the Senate. He may vote in the Senate in the case of a tie, but is not required to. The President Pro Tempore (and others designated by him) usually perform these duties during the Vice President’s frequent absences from the Senate.

By: Neo

Neo — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:04:03 +0000

This was a war of wills, but Addington and Yoo knew the ground rules well. The Congressmen would have little time to ask questions, so they both used the “Russian bear hug” technique .. use long answers .. eat up their time.

Rudeness, by the way, usually scores points to most people’s minds(i.e. view NAFTA debate between Gore and Perot).

Frankly, when hearings really don’t want any real answers, which these hearing didn’t, this is what they deserve. I’ve always wanted to see somebody give a Congressional committee a “body slam” and this is about as close as it will ever come and still stay polite.

By: Thomas Jackson

Thomas Jackson — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:40:31 +0000

Let’s recall the steroid hearings. Why were the dhimmies wasting time on this and the kind of light bulbs we should use as the enrgy crisis grew worse and worse. Why do they offer us as a solution Magic Pixie Dust instead of exploiting known technologies and resources and encouraging practical research for alternative sources or advanced technology.

I am heartily sick and scared of the dhimmies who still believe taxing corproations will make the average working guy better off or that taxing dividens is social justice.

Show me a state where Liberals reign and I’ll show you high taxes, declining populations, and high crime.

By: Dennis D

Dennis D — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:54:14 +0000

Delahunt was clearly thrilled that Addington can be identified by Al Qaida . Thats SICK. How low have these Dems gone? Can they go below the gutter?

By: DrKrbyLuv

DrKrbyLuv — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:07:21 +0000

I agree, our Government seems to be eminently dysfunctional. Recent polls show that most Americans agree (Bush below 30% approval rating & Congress even lower). Nothing seems to get done and the mean spirited squabbling is exasperating.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 05:22:39 +0000

The idea that Al Qaeda can target Addington now that he’s been on TV is just plain stupid and dishonest. Anyone who can use Google can find innumerable pictures of him. Of course, the idea that Al Qaeda couldn’t be sure whether the U.S. waterboards prisoners unless Addington had confirmed it is equally stupid and dishonest. Delahunt was making a pointed comment about Addington’s (and his boss’s) penchant for behind-the-scenes skullduggery, not a death threat.

By the way, Yoo teaches at Berkeley, not Stanford.

By: Scrapiron

Scrapiron — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:51:04 +0000

I would consider the idiots in congress the enemy, me their prisoner, and give only Name, Rank, and Serial number, along with a KMA attitude.
When you puts the clown in charge you have to expect a circus to break out. We have had 17 month of continous circus performances while they killed the economy.
There isn’t any other way to look at it, BDS is running wild in the democrat party and someone is going to have to start arresting them and confining them to a mental facility for our own safety.
The democrats are responsible for 90% of the American deaths in Iraq. Providing aid and comfort in time of war tends to get people killed. Check a recent Yale or Harvard study which verified that.

By: Ian

Ian — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:40:48 +0000

signing statements (where there has not been one single instance of the president invoking)

Just as an aside, you guys really don’t get why people are up in arms about signing statements, do you?

It’s not that he’s using a tool that is legally available to him, it’s the way and the amount of times that he uses it. The constitution says that the president can sign a law or veto it. Those are the choices. The problem is that Bush uses the signing statements to pass a law, but strike parts that he finds inconvenient. This creates a de-facto line item veto, which as you may recall, the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional. Additionally, Bush has used this power more than every other president combined. From Charlie Savages Pulitzer prize winning essay on the signing statements:

WASHINGTON — President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ”whistle-blower” protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush’s assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ”to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ”execute” a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.

As you said (quite admirably, you’re one of the first conservatives I’ve seen that has called Bush administration’s interpretation of the constitution loopy), Bush has gotten terrible advice about constitutional interpretations. These same people are telling him that he has the right to ignore any law he finds inconvenient. I don’t want any president, R or D, to have that power.

And yes, that hearing was painful to watch.

By: retire05

retire05 — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:05:59 +0000

Rick, did it ever occur to you that perhaps those who work for the Administration are perhaps fed up to the neck in being drug through the show trials of the Democrats?

Just a thought.

Now, here is another thought:

have you heard one word from Nancy Pelosi on any torture techniques used on detainees? No? Why do you think that is? Could it be because the techniques where designed by not only the Administration but the Congress, as well, and SanFranNan doesn’t want that to ever come out?

Nancy Pelosi if fully aware of what techniques were, and were not used. But she remains mum on the subject.

Just a thought.

By: APO

APO — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:44:02 +0000

Rick, consider this, Congress has the right to hale people in front of it and ask those people questions designed to elicit information. When they do so simply to grandstand, that is deeply offensive. Moreoever, when they insult a captive audience, that is simply beyond the pale. I am a citizen of a free nation; no government official has the right to force me to come in front of them and then insult me, and if they do, I have the right to respond in kind. For example, if I were in front of Senator Kennedy, and he insulted me, I would simply refer to him as Senator Chappaquiddick. If Senator Biden did so, I would ask aloud whether anything he said could be trusted given his cheating in law school.

I think you miss the issue about the intrusiveness of such an ordeal. And besides, it’s easy to have contempt for a creature like Delahunt.

As for torture etc., I think you need to grow up a little bit. First of all, no one is advocating rape by trained animals, serious disfigurement, serious pain, torturing of children or anything like that. Second of all, wars aren’t always fought with kid gloves. That’s life. Lives are at stake, and these guys aren’t honorable combatants. Remember what Bill Clinton said–”we have to have a policy against torture”.