Quote:
Originally Posted by erps
The democrats are currently in charge of congress. That's called the legislative branch. President Bush is in charge of the executive branch.
|
Is your point that Bush doesn't have to sign legislation in order for it to become law? Which constitution is that in? Or is it that if it's bad legislation, and he signs it, that it's the Democrats fault?
Chuckles is attempting to say that Bush can't be held accountable, regardless of his signature on a bill, if it's passed by a Democratically controlled congress. That's a contemporary republican view, it would seem, as it sidesteps Bush's accountability. He posted this in reference to my post on a list of Republican initiated Nationalizations. He claimed "Democrats made the Prez do it"
No dice.
If the President signs a bill.. it's his. If he doesn't want his name on it.. he veto's it. This how the system works. Fainting outrage of bad bill which this President signed that was passed by congress is ridiculous, yet somehow expected considering the Republican's lack of accountability these days.
This argument would play much better with a Presidential veto overridden by Congress.
And Bush has proven himself worse than useless. He's proven himself dangerous to American companies, American National Interests, the military, and lastly all Americans.