Comments on: GEPHARDT 101

By: Chris Lawrence

Chris Lawrence — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Heh, that's the exact opposite of my reaction. But I'm a Madisonian, not a Jacksonian, at heart. :-)

BTW, for some weird reason your ping didn't include the title of the post. It gave me a chance to fix the code to deal with that in the code, though, so thanks! ;-)

By: Chris Lawrence

Chris Lawrence — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Hmm. I guess that last sentence was a bit redundant in places. Ah well.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

My problem is that it basically reduces us to having 2 branches of goverment. If the exec branch can just undo the judical, why have a judical? I've always thought of our "three ring goverment" as a world's largest game of "Rock, Paper, Scissors. And I sorta like it that way.

By: Brett

Brett — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Jim:

Your post is pretty satirical (I like it!) but I think that we probably agree in thinking that the Supreme Court has claimed too much exclusive interpretive authority. We disagree on the directions of the best view of constitutional interpretation, though. Unless I misread your post, which has been known to happen. . .

By: PoliBlog

PoliBlog — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Ge[phardt's Gaffe
Brett, Brett, Brett, let's face facts, the basics of Gephardt's statement does come across, on the face of it, as fairly ridiculous. While it is true that a President can make certain decisions on how policies, like abortion councilling and...

---