Xah Lee's Unixism

[keith]

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.

-- 
  Keith