Thread: Mitt Romney

Originally Posted by PatriotDreams

The President DOESN'T enforce the laws in this country, I don't know where some of you get this insane idea.

This "insane idea" comes from the CONSTITUTION--

Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The President sets the standard for what IS or IS NOT enforced! One of the many reasons we need to get back to the Constitution--people don't even remember what it says!

Trixie,

Adjusted for inflation. That $500 TV would cost $5000 or more today easily. That is adjusted for inflation. Find the inflation index for that 50yr period then run it on $500 for the period time. Back in the 50's very FEW had TV. Most poor & lower middle class didn't own one. Go back & look at the total number TV's compared to households. It was very low. Now people have one in every room of the house! Back then it was quite some time before most had one. Our family had B&W for a long time after color came out. The facts do not support that everyone had one just like today. They didn't. A TV, even an automatic washer dryer were LUXURY items. My mom had a manual washer with the had wringer & we dried our clothes on the clothes line until I was probably 12. Many of the items we think essential or common, were far from common back then.

Who makes your cell phone? Who makes the parts inside your American made washer or refrigerator? Who makes them? You can't buy an American made phone, let alone a cell phone.

We don't need restrictive tariffs, we need a fair trade policy, nothing more.

The President get's credit & blammed for things they really didn't do. Do you really think Bill Clinton was the architect of prosperity in the 90's????

That was a direct result of policies implemented during Reagan & Bush 1 by the congress which was mostly sympathetic to Reagan because he won by such a large margin. Congress felt the pressure that the people would revolt if they didn't atleast go along somewhat with the president.

Bush 1 rode the coattails of the Reagan years into office. Reagan himself would never take credit for our economic resurgance. He did however defeat the soviets by strong foreign policy.

As for law enforcement, The President doesn't have that power that you think. Sure he can appoint some people at the top, but that doesn't effect the Rank & file.

About the only power that the president has unilaterally is the power to send the US Marines anywhere he wishes in the world for 72hours. That's why it was Marines that invaded Grenada. The balance of power defines the roles & scope of what a president can do.

He effects domestic policy more by advocacy & influence on the bully pulpit of the presidency, than by any thing that he has total direct control over. Review the Balance of power. You will see that this is accurate. yes we all think that the Pres can launch Nukes by himself with the big red button & the football, but the truth is far from that reality.

Congress is who we should all be really mad at.

Imblest,

The President has never had unilateral ability to enforce the laws in this country. Not even George Washington did so.

If that was the case, we wouldn't have a drug smuggling problem, A human traffiking problem nor a tax evasion problem.

Most conservative constitutional scholars have inturpreted that statement to be exactly what the oath of office implies. To protect & defend the CONSTITUTION against all enemies foreign & domestic. Not every law that was ever added to the books.

PatriotDreams,

From this website- http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html

The United States Constitution is deliberately inefficient.

The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power known as Checks and Balances.

Three branches are created in the Constitution. The Legislative, composed of the House and Senate, is set up in Article 1. The Executive, composed of the President, Vice-President, and the Departments, is set up in Article 2. The Judicial, composed of the federal courts and the Supreme Court, is set up in Article 3.

Each of these branches has certain powers, and each of these powers is limited, or checked, by another branch.

For example, the President appoints judges and departmental secretaries. But these appointments must be approved by the Senate. The Congress can pass a law, but the President can veto it. The Supreme Court can rule a law to be unconstitutional, but the Congress, with the States, can amend the Constitution.

All of these checks and balances, however, are inefficient. But that's by design rather than by accident. By forcing the various branches to be accountable to the others, no one branch can usurp enough power to become dominant.

The following are the powers of the Executive: veto power over all bills; appointment of judges and other officials; makes treaties; ensures all laws are carried out; commander in chief of the military; pardon power. The checks can be found on the Checks and Balances Page.

The following are the powers of the Legislature: Passes all federal laws; establishes all lower federal courts; can override a Presidential veto; can impeach the President. The checks can be found on the Checks and Balances Page.

The following are the powers of the Judiciary: the power to try federal cases and interpret the laws of the nation in those cases; the power to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional. The checks can be found on the Checks and Balances Page.

The Constitution says the executive branch, which the president is the head of, is responsible for insuring that the laws are executed. I would assume that means FEDERAL laws, which immigration laws are.

You wrote--
If that was the case, we wouldn't have a drug smuggling problem, A human traffiking problem nor a tax evasion problem.

Huh?? I don't see how those problems are related to the president not having the duty to enforce laws.