Presidential Candidates on Animal Issues

[lizbud]

And the office of the President of the United States has what jurisdiction over animal welfare?

I'd like to propose a moment of silence for the 10th amendment to the United States Constitution, may it rest in piece.

Seems like, lately, we can always count on you for a negative or
argumentative statement. It's good to know you never disappoint anyone.

[Lady's Human]

On one hand people complain about the power of the office of the President, and then they ask the federal government to intervene in areas where the federal government has no constitutional standing.

You can't have it both ways.

I'm not being argumentative, just asking people to THINK about issues before asking for federal help in solving problems, or bringing the issues up in federal campaigns. When was the last time you read the Constitution?

[kitten645]

"Seems like, lately, we can always count on you for a negative or
argumentative statement. It's good to know you never disappoint anyone."

I agree. That aside and beyond the 10th amendment, I think that a politicians personal views on issues (any) speaks to the character of the person. If they have the authority to make a decison on something is secondary to what their personal views are on the subject. For me, animal issues are very important and I'd cast my vote for someone with similar views. It speaks to the sensibility of a candidate IMO.
Claudia

[Lady's Human]

Does it matter what someone who is running for selectman in Dogpatch thinks about the war in Afghanistan? Honestly, no, because he/she can't do anything about it. Does it matter what a Representative thinks about the SALT or SALT II treaties? No, because they can't do anything about it. It isn't in their jurisdiction under the Constitution. That power lies with the Senate, not the House.

The breakdown in the lines of what branch of government has jurisdiction over something is a fundemental flaw in our current system of government.

[lizbud]

"Seems like, lately, we can always count on you for a negative or
argumentative statement. It's good to know you never disappoint anyone."

I agree. That aside and beyond the 10th amendment, I think that a politicians personal views on issues (any) speaks to the character of the person. If they have the authority to make a decison on something is secondary to what their personal views are on the subject. For me, animal issues are very important and I'd cast my vote for someone with similar views. It speaks to the sensibility of a candidate IMO.
Claudia

It absolutely speaks to the character of the candidate & why anyone
on a pet board can't see that is beyond me. It's not that complicated.

[Edwina's Secretary]

LH...I don't know if you have ever heard the expression "Bully Pulpit." It was first used by President Theodore Roosevelt. I don't see where in this thread anyone has suggested the president of the United States should get involved in establishing or enforcing animal protection laws.

The president doesn't have constitutional authority regarding many of the issues that are begin debated....and have been debated...by presidential candidates since the country began. Taxes - for example -- are raised or lowered by congress but just today I read an quote from President Bush about the importance of lowered taxes - one of his platforms.

But they influence, lead, set the tone. And people want to know what that tone is.

You might want to read some of what has been written about Theodore Rossevelt and the concept of the Bully Pulpit!

[caseysmom]

It absolutely speaks to the character of the candidate & why anyone
on a pet board can't see that is beyond me. It's not that complicated.

Not to mention it could help the cause of animals in other countries if the leader of the free world is on board with animal rights issues.

[Lady's Human]

Sara, I'm very well aware of the power of the bully pulpit, however, I've yet to see concrete proposals on an actual issue from any candidate beyond "National health care would be good", "We have to reduce our dependence on foreign energy", and other boilerplate BS.

I've gone to the websites of several candidates (Good place to list specifics on issues) and nothing is there beyond the boilerplate.

I'm far more concerned with what the candidates say they are going to do about issues directly under their control. So far it's been all style, no substance, and that concerns me, especially mere weeks away from Super Tuesday.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Then I think your argument belongs somewhere other than on this thread. If you want candidates who take positions on issues as you think they should -- write them, call them -- whatever.

No one in this thread has suggested the president should or does have authority over animal welfare. Some people have suggested they would like to know the candidates' opinions about it.

Apparently you do not think people should want to know the candidates' opinion on taxes, gay marriage, abortion, education, and a host of other issues that are being debated in this election (which is no different from any prior election.)

I won't agree or disagree. But I think you should pick up the pieces of your shattered constitution and take your complaint to someone who can do something about it -- the candidates. Tell them to stop expressing opinions on things like "no child left behind", the economy etc.

I am more concerned about people who might vote and think that your middle name denotes your religion and your willingness tobe a traitor.