The United States Government Now Has A Site To Talk Openly To The People - 0 views

• 
  #1 Arthur Mahoney on 24 May 12

   

  He said that they knew Congress could political election against it, "but I've made my decision and we're going forward. " The president comes with said repeatedly, that he or she is "the decider" on issues of war. While, according the us Constitution the president must have the Congress approval with issues of war. Within a hearing on congressional showdown powers, Senator Spector, said that they would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the only decider. The decider can be a shared responsibility.
  
  There are generally many other conflicts between the two branches of power in the usa, the president and that Congress, during the North american history. But the main question that relates to mind is that why these kind of conflicts have always existed in the American history? Usually the vast majority of Congress is made up of the party opposed to one of the president. However, in cases which both president and the Congress were in the same party, conflicts existed. Although it has a few effects, we can conclude that this origin of these conflicts considerably of the party affiliation.
  
  Historically, Republican presidents have constantly had more success in working with a Democrat dominated Congress than a Democrat president with some sort of Republican dominated Congress. Democrat presidents have tried real problems with Democrat centric Congress. Therefore a simple same-party majority relating to the president and Congress fails to guarantee that the president will discover his recommendations accepted. This could show that the ideologies kept by American politicians are certainly not simply linked to one party. Cross-party support for a certain issue can together with does happen.
  
  But which are the sources of these clashes? I think several factors can cause conflict in US process of separated institutions spreading power. Among them are constitutional ambiguities, different constituencies, varying terms of office, divided party control with the different branches, and fluctuating support of an president or the Congress.
  .
  President Obama made a brilliant political move yesterday and boy did it get Republicans in Congress ecstatic. Ignoring the pro forma times, which have technically maintained the Senate in appointment, Obama made 4 recess appointments that this Senate has held up for months.
  
  Break appointments? Who cares? Absolutely everyone makes recess appointments. This is true, yet since 2007 this Senate, first under this leadership of Harry Reid, has found ways to circumvent the President's capacity make recess appointments. To be able to stop President George Watts. Bush from making marked by controversy recess appointments, Reid held pro forma sessions inside Senate every three days. This process kept the Senate technically in period every three days so Bush can't make recess appointments since legal standard has been that Senate has to be out of session for a lot more than three days before the President tend to make a recess appointment.
  
  What is a pro forma session? Every three days one Senator would get the chamber, usually a Senator near by from Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The Senator would probably gavel the Senate within and seconds later would gavel the Senate out and would then get home. That's it! No business to discuss. No legislative work. Practically nothing. The whole point of these sessions was to defend against the constitutional Presidential capacity to make recess appointments.
  
  United States Congress

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">He said that they knew Congress could political election against it, "but I've made my decision and we're going forward. " The president comes with said repeatedly, that he or she is "the decider" on issues of war. While, according the us Constitution the president must have the Congress approval with issues of war. Within a hearing on congressional showdown powers, Senator Spector, said that they would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the only decider. The decider can be a shared responsibility. <br /> <br /> There are generally many other conflicts between the two branches of power in the usa, the president and that Congress, during the North american history. But the main question that relates to mind is that why these kind of conflicts have always existed in the American history? Usually the vast majority of Congress is made up of the party opposed to one of the president. However, in cases which both president and the Congress were in the same party, conflicts existed. Although it has a few effects, we can conclude that this origin of these conflicts considerably of the party affiliation. <br /> <br /> Historically, Republican presidents have constantly had more success in working with a Democrat dominated Congress than a Democrat president with some sort of Republican dominated Congress. Democrat presidents have tried real problems with Democrat centric Congress. Therefore a simple same-party majority relating to the president and Congress fails to guarantee that the president will discover his recommendations accepted. This could show that the ideologies kept by American politicians are certainly not simply linked to one party. Cross-party support for a certain issue can together with does happen. <br /> <br /> But which are the sources of these clashes? I think several factors can cause conflict in US process of separated institutions spreading power. Among them are constitutional ambiguities, different constituencies, varying terms of office, divided party control with the different branches, and fluctuating support of an president or the Congress. <br />.<br />President Obama made a brilliant political move yesterday and boy did it get Republicans in Congress ecstatic. Ignoring the pro forma times, which have technically maintained the Senate in appointment, Obama made 4 recess appointments that this Senate has held up for months. <br /> <br /> Break appointments? Who cares? Absolutely everyone makes recess appointments. This is true, yet since 2007 this Senate, first under this leadership of Harry Reid, has found ways to circumvent the President's capacity make recess appointments. To be able to stop President George Watts. Bush from making marked by controversy recess appointments, Reid held pro forma sessions inside Senate every three days. This process kept the Senate technically in period every three days so Bush can't make recess appointments since legal standard has been that Senate has to be out of session for a lot more than three days before the President tend to make a recess appointment. <br /> <br /> What is a pro forma session? Every three days one Senator would get the chamber, usually a Senator near by from Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The Senator would probably gavel the Senate within and seconds later would gavel the Senate out and would then get home. That's it! No business to discuss. No legislative work. Practically nothing. The whole point of these sessions was to defend against the constitutional Presidential capacity to make recess appointments. <br /> <br /><a href="http://www.unitedstatescongress.net/" rel="nofollow">United States Congress</a></div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top