It would really be peachy keen if the candidates had to take a test on the Constitution and separation of powers before running. Better yet, give them a civics test and publish the results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
Printable View
It would really be peachy keen if the candidates had to take a test on the Constitution and separation of powers before running. Better yet, give them a civics test and publish the results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
Would it help the state of your Separation of Powers ???? I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
It will never function properly as long as your judges remain politicised.
It would help if the populace and the candidates had a bloody clue what the constitutiuonal powers of the office they are running for holds.
That pledge has damned near nothing to do with presidential powers.
Politicized judges? they're not elected positions at the federal level, they're nominated. WTH are you talking about there?
YES !!!! A Politicised Judiciary !!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
I'm talking about your mentioning candidates being "tested" on the Separation of Powers that is supposed to exist in your country. Would that help the situation that exists ??? A system that is not a true Separation of the Powers ???
Your judges at the Federal level are nominated by the President...does he not represent a political party ??? And therefore would he not nominate those judges who would best suit his interests ???
In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued for the independence of judges. He believed they should be appointed to serve "during good behavior" and insulated from the political process, as this helps them check the legislative and executive branches. The main reason for this is that it is more difficult for a judge that is affiliated with a political party and in need of campaign funds from that party, to pass rulings against their Party leaders in the Congress, or executive branch.
So what I'm asking is.....would candidates benefit at all by being tested ???
Yes, judges are nominated by the executive branch, however, a nomination to the federal bench does not equal a spot on the federal bench.
After nomination, the nomination is taken to the Senate, where the candidates (if the Senate hasn't decided to take their ball and go home) are voted on by the Senate.
We have an independent judiciary at the FEDERAL level. However, the state judiciaries are a mixed bag. Some judges are elected, some are appointed, depending on the state.
What you missed in my comment about testing the candidates, Wom, is that most of the "pledge" signed by Rep. Bachmann has nothing at all to do with the powers granted the president by the Constitution. The President has nothing to do with state legislation. The President cannot Constitutionally introduce an amendment to the Constitution. The President has a part in the budgetary process, however, all revenue bills have to originate in the house. Welfare policy at the federal level is a revenue bill, and as such is the duty of the House. Resisting a Federal judicial decision is grounds for impeachment, if the judiciary decides that the Constitution says XYZ about an issue, then the executive branch is beholden to abide by that decision.
The whole "Pledge" is a miasma of contradictory statements which have zero relevance to a candidate running for President.
I'm not asking to make a civics test a qualifier for running, however, if a candidate took the test and failed it, it might tell the voters something about the candidate they were supporting. If a candidate can't pass a high school civics test (as Rep. Bachmann obviously couldn't, judging by the pledge she signed), should someone really be supporting them as a candidate for the highest office in the land?
Most interesting. I decided to check out the pledge before I read these latest postings.
Have any of you read the entire document including the preamble?
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM187_marriage.html
I might just get politically active.
Thanks for the link to the pledge.....I wonder if Jacob (AKA Israel) knew he was breaking Jewish law by having multiple wives.
What a pile of drivel.
Good point. So why would anyone want the highest office in the land if they never had the knowledge they'd need to hold that office ???Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrspunkysmom
I wonder if Arnie has read that. :p
Because they want the fame and power, but haven't a clue about the rest!Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
Idiots !!!! Don't they understand that the country's fame and power must come before their own ???Quote:
Originally Posted by Karen
Oh Karen, do you really believe that? I may not agree with anything that has come out of Michelle Bachmann's mouth but I do not believe she is looking for fame and power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Karen
People who go into public service - whether that be a military career or a political/policy making career - do it for the same reasons - love of country, a desire to service the country, a passion for the career.
And they believe they can do it better than someone else.
I was answering the general question - but I do believe she is looking for fame and power - the power to do things a president isn't even allowed to do, mind you ... I am sure she sincerely believes that she would be doing us all a service to make us conform to her specific belief system, but that's not what America is all about!Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
Separation of church and state anyone?
She, and that ridiculous "pledge" are well....ridiculous. It goes against what our country and our constitution are suppose to stand for - not to mention contradictory and...well... factually wrong in some instances.
I understand they have removed from the preamble the section about African-American families being better off under slavery than today.
It is just wrong on so many levels. Blathering on about scientific evidence - from people I am willing to bet want Creationism taught in schools despite the...lack of scientific evidence? Double negatives and outright bizarre statements...
While I accept there are some candidates who are in it for power or fame - Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich come to mind instantly - they usually are not prepared to do the hard work and commitment a national campaign requires.
Speaking of which...I see my Newsweek magazine this week will have Ms. Palin on the cover and an interview with her about how she believes she could win national office. That seems to me to be confirmation she will not run. I doubt she wants to prove herself wrong (but of course it would be the fault of the MSM she courts so hard or someone...anyone's fault but hers...:rolleyes:)
Sarah Palin is not looking for fame and power. She's already got it.
AND.....a body and face worth dying for.
Grrrrrr....come here Sarah....whip me, whip me. :D