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?
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
What in this article had to do with checks and balances?
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.
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.
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.
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!
A Obama/Clinton ticket would be just the ticket... Bill, that is. Make Hillary
ass't dog catcher.
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.
Amen Brother, but we're going to fix that soon.
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.