Xah Lee's Unixism
krw at att.bizzzz
Sun Sep 12 05:10:52 CEST 2004
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 14:51:56 -0700, Jack Peacock wrote:
> "Chuck Dillon" <spam at nimblegen.com> wrote in message
> news:chsbod$q0i$1 at grandcanyon.binc.net...
>> Your argument is shallow if you direct it to the person who happens to be
>> holding the office of President at the moment. The President can't
>> introduce or pass law.
> Laws no, but the definition of a law can be ambiguous. Congress has given
> federal agencies under the President broad power to issue regulations with
> the same effect as laws, but without going through the legislative process.
> Anyone who has ever battled with the Bureau of Land Management or ran afoul
> of the Endangered Species Act knows that "laws" are often created by fiat in
> a Washington DC office building.
> Then there are presidential Executive Orders which are often attempts to end
> run around a lack of congressional cooperation. Clinton attempted to use
> this to outlaw firearms posession in federal housing until the Supreme Court
> put a stop to it.
> And finally there are international treaties, which operate with the force
> of law but are not passed by the House of Representatives. The President
> signs it and the Senate confirms it, but half the legislative process is cut
> out. Often all that protects the country from disasters like the Kyoto
> Treaty is a filibuster by a Senate minority.
In the case of Kyoto, no filibuster was necessary. Even Kerry wouldn't
have voted for it (it went doen 99-0 in a trial balloon). ...though might
today. Who knows what he'd support tomorrow. He's been on eight sides
(and still inventing more) of the Iraq issue.
More information about the Python-list