Saturday, December 20, 2008

Bush's portrait

I couldn't love it more.

5 comments:

Nick said...

Odd, he decided not to wear his crown.

lms said...

Oh please. History will decide, but I hardly think anyone thinks Bush wears a crown.

Nick said...

He has most decidedly turned himself into a King. The most recent, and perhaps most stark example is what happened with the Auto Bailout.

Congress refused to pass a bailout law. Bush's response was to say (almost an exact quote), "Because Congress failed to act, the White House must act."

Think about that. Congress refused to pass a law, and Bush said that because Congress didn't pass a law, his response must be to act as if the law was passed anyway. He then BROKE THE LAW, but using TARP funds to fund the auto bailout... something which is specifically forbidden in the TARP legislation.

Even a 12 year old, who has no more knowledge of government than what he learned in School House Rock, knows how our government works.

Creating laws out of thin air, outside of the legislative process, is precisely what a King does.

This isn't the only time he has done it, but it certainly is the most recently, and one of the more costly.

What is even more galling to me is that most people, especially members of Congress, don't seem to be bothered by any of this.

lms said...

I'm not 12, but I should probably remind you that Bush was elected once, AND re-elected with the majority popular vote. I am not a fan of everything that has happened, however he has most certainly NOT had a kingship in that he's been a lame-duck for more than the past 2 years and our do-nothing Congress which happens to be in the majority Party opposite the President's is just as much to blame.

Nick said...

But that's the point. They are not to blame... for they didn't pass a law. He is acting without the authority of a law, duly passed by our representatives in Congress as presecribed by the Constitution.

Congress' inability to pass a law granting him the power he desires does not, in any sense of Constitutional governence, grant him the right to take it anyway... whether it is perceived as good or not.

After all, and I know I am about to invoke Godwin's Law (but in this case it is actually an appropriate analogy), even Hitler was first elected by the populace.

I am not saying that Bush is acting as a Hitler, but I am saying that suggesting a person being voted in by a majority does not grant him the right to do whatever he well pleases.

He was elected by a Constitutional framework, with the expectation that he would work within that framework.

If we do not stop these sorts of actions by a President... what is next? Perhaps next year, Congress will debate, but fail to pass a Nationalized Health Care system. Would you be equally as happy if President Obama simply directs the Sec. of Health and Human Services to create a system anyway, because Congress failed to act to protect the health of the population?