Checks and balances broken

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • BOSOX
    June 9, 2008 6:44 p.m.

    We have been hearing about smaller federal government for decades and yet no one, not Dems and not Reps do anything about it yet we the people continue to re-elect these folks. Why is that?

  • Gus Talwynd
    June 9, 2008 12:48 p.m.

    Previous comments have addressed the error in this letter regarding "checks and balances".

    What the writer is really requesting is better over-sight in selecting a runningmate. However, this need for over-sight extends to all areas of government so that abuse can be minimized.

    A unitary presidency sought by the Bush/Cheney administration is an excellent example how the loss of "checks and balances" results in a lack of over-sight. However, if there is adequate "checks and balances" within the system, then over-sight is maintained.

    Nonetheless, the premise of this letter refers to "over-sight" as part of a vetting procedure in the selection of a vice-presidential candidate and not the relationship of the three branches of government.

  • Checks & Balances?
    June 9, 2008 12:27 p.m.

    What in this article had to do with checks and balances?

  • Grant
    June 9, 2008 11:06 a.m.

    I am the author. Lewt has it right. The D-News edited out a bit how Congress, the Court and We the People have failed to check two bad presidents (although I still say subverting the Constitution is more serious than illicit sex - but that will just get me in more trouble.) Federalism isn't the answer. "States Rights" sounds like a great political philosophy until you look at it historically and see that it was mainly used to defend slavery and Jim Crow.

  • DBG
    June 9, 2008 10:58 a.m.

    I have to agree with Lewt. This isn't "checks and balance." This is more of a federalism issue. Checks and Balances refer to the balance between Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government which the writer did not even address. I think the writer was confusing the two.

  • Lewt
    June 9, 2008 9:45 a.m.

    Barry, Chuck and Anon. are all talking about federalism, not checks and balances. The writer's point is that executive power now is way out of line with the other two branches, and for more than one reason. Lots of luck to our current Congress to try to recapture some of the Constitutional authority it was designed to have.

  • Barry
    June 9, 2008 8:59 a.m.

    Hey Anonymous, your comment is exactly in line with Pres. Ronald Reagan's belief, smaller government, more autonomy for states, etc. It's interesting that you would invoke Reagan doctrine. Obama seeks to diminish autonomy for states, and create bigger government--Hill' Clinton also believed in this doctrine. Good call!

  • wrz
    June 9, 2008 8:48 a.m.

    A Obama/Clinton ticket would be just the ticket... Bill, that is. Make Hillary ass't dog catcher.

  • chuck keilman
    June 9, 2008 8:35 a.m.

    If it is true that our system of checks and balances have broken down, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Check the percentages of those who are registered that actually vote. How many of us even know how our representatives voted on the last five issues before congress. The Congress has set itself up as some kind of royalty and we allow it instead of making them accountable to actually work for us. Until the American people begin to take an educated interest in the political affairs of this country we are doomed to have the best of the worst in our leadership. We have finally hit the bottom of the barrel with this upcoming election. I for one am going to do a write in candidate as I do not feel either of these delegates deserve to be president of this great country. That being said it may be that the most important people in government are not those running for president. Every situation has it's pros and cons. I want PROgress for this counry so maybe we need to concentrate on changing the CONgress.

  • Bart
    June 9, 2008 7:14 a.m.

    Amen Brother, but we're going to fix that soon.

  • Anonymous
    June 9, 2008 6:08 a.m.

    Well said. We need a smaller federal government with more autonomy to each state. The feds dominate the political direction by withholding funds if states don't fall in line. With one set of ideas being pushed onto the states there is a lack of diversity. If we are headed down the wrong road, we all are going in the wrong direction. I favor competition between states.