Comments on: House parties bringing politics to the people

By: Jerry

Jerry — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:58:57 +0000

You have a timid view of checks and balances. I think in terms of vetos, veto overrides, appointment of judges by executives but for life, impeachment of judges by legislatures, power of the purse, etc.

They call it “interest pitted against interest.” Checks to beget balance. Not necessarily working together. That’s just majoritarianism.

By: mightyrighty

mightyrighty — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:58:56 +0000

Jerry –

By simply being the checks and balances that they are. In the case of a ruling by the supreme court, the legislative branch needs to take next steps if this ruling is in conflict with what is currently on the books. Is there an ammendment or law that needs to change? Should something be submitted to the people for a vote?

The executive branch needs to recognize if an opinion by the supreme court is in conflict, call for the legislative branch to take action, be the bully pulpit, if you will. That is why they are there.

Our elected officials are put in office to serve the people but also must remember their governement roles and excercise them when the time comes. Not sit idly by and let the process just stop at one branch of the government.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:05:36 +0000

How can the three branches of government all work together if they are set up to be “checks and balances”?

By: conservative dad

conservative dad — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:47:01 +0000

I attended a house party also. You can tell that Bob VP speaks from his very soul on this issues. What he believes defines his life and those are the types of people we need in office.

By: Shane Vander Hart

Shane Vander Hart — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:03:06 +0000

I had a good chance to talk with him on Thursday. He’s real accessible.

By: Al Bregar

Al Bregar — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:37:48 +0000

I really wish that I could make it to one of the house parties, but so far I haven’t been able to.