Recession? What recession? The Bushes Buy Fine China for almost 1/2 a mil.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

Cool man. I wasn't joking around or trying to amuse you. I said my post was lighthearted in nature. I was trying to make it come across to CG like I wasn't upset or anything. Next time I type a post directed towards you....or one that I feel needs your approval...I'll let you know.

I don't know if that has ever been done. It makes sense to me......having a newly elected President review any pending regulations set forth by a recently vacated administration.

If you are still conscious, drop a post on it...I am curious about it...

I am shutting down now...been up for almost 22 hrs on this buzz is no good.

Here is another question...

What are the legal ramifications on overturning bills that previous admins have passed thru congress...sorry if it doesn';t make sense..tired, but I got a feeling u know where I am going...

help me out.

laters

[SWTXBelle]

Can't just overturn bills that have become law - but there are plenty of policies that are not a result of legislation (insert joke here) that Obama will now have leeway to change. As I understand it, though, there are bureaucratic hoops that must be jumped through, so any change will take some time. Sweet dreams, DS.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Can't just overturn bills that have become law - but there are plenty of policies that are not a result of legislation (insert joke here) that Obama will now have leeway to change. As I understand it, though, there are bureaucratic hoops that must be jumped through, so any change will take some time. Sweet dreams, DS.

Thank you...that's where I was trying to go with that.

I am trying to get some idea of what would have to be done for any new admin coming in to reverse some of the things that an old admin may have done that a new admin may deem as unfit, improper or injust for the country.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

I think I can openly admit that I think "black people" when I conjure up images of Mad Dog 40 Oz Malt Liquor.

Really? I think of TKEs.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That would be a PERFECT lunch tomorrow!

But you aren't invited if you're gonna be Obama crazy. Be happy but not crazy. Meet you at noon.

I'm wearing my brand new Obama shirt, but I promise to behave!

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Thank you...that's where I was trying to go with that.

I am trying to get some idea of what would have to be done for any new admin coming in to reverse some of the things that an old admin may have done that a new admin may deem as unfit, improper or injust for the country.

Well, there may be a clue as to Obama's plans in the recent hires for his administration. His Solicitor General (the principal government advocate before the Supreme Court) will be Elena Kagan, the dean of Harvard Law (and, according to many, a likely future Supreme Court pick). Her most well-known article argued for increased Presidential power in terms of the various administrative agencies, and, working in the Clinton administration, she frequently advocated for a stronger executive branch.

It may well be that the new President is looking to strengthen the executive branch even further.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That was cool.



I can see a Jewish president before a Muslim president. I definitely can't see an Atheist or Wiccan president.

To answer your question, that may be based on two things:

Is swearing in on the Bible a written/required part of the process?

Is it the Bible as literature or the Bible as a religious document? What do they do in a court of law where the person is Muslim, etc. and there is swearing on the Bible?

The way it's outlined in the Constitution (Article II, Section I), the President doesn't have to take the oath on a Bible; the Constitution just gives the wording of the oath (it doesn't include any language about "God" or other supreme being) and no other guidance.

I'm guessing that using the Bible is just tradition, and that the President wouldn't need to swear on the Bible if he or she did not want to do so.

ETA: For the court proceedings I've seen (trials and hearings), I haven't seen a Bible used; the witness just had to raise their right hand.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

It may well be that the new President is looking to strengthen the executive branch even further.

How do you feel about that, in general?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

How do you feel about that, in general?

In general, I'd rather not have the executive branch too powerful; I think there's a good reason for the balance between the three branches, and I like the check and balance aspect to it. An executive branch that's overly powerful has the ability to push through personal agendas and the like.

I'd even feel that way if the executive branch was representing my own personal interests (low taxes, limited government, etc.). I just think you run into too many issues the closer you get to an all-powerful executive.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

In general, I'd rather not have the executive branch too powerful; I think there's a good reason for the balance between the three branches, and I like the check and balance aspect to it. An executive branch that's overly powerful has the ability to push through personal agendas and the like.

I'd even feel that way if the executive branch was representing my own personal interests (low taxes, limited government, etc.). I just think you run into too many issues the closer you get to an all-powerful executive.

True and quite honestly, I felt that way with the last admin especially with the wiretapping and Gitmo that were were on our way to losing some rights because the admin just stepped over our rights...some consolidation and more accountability is needed yes, but not at the expense of giving one branch too much power.

Hey...care to make a new thread of this or are u good right here?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

True and quite honestly, I felt that way with the last admin especially with the wiretapping and Gitmo that were were on our way to losing some rights because the admin just stepped over our rights...some consolidation and more accountability is needed yes, but not at the expense of giving one branch too much power.

Hey...care to make a new thread of this or are u good right here?

I'm fine with discussing it right here - if people have complaints we can break it off into another thread.

While we may not agree on some of the results, I agree with your general point. If the executive branch is too powerful, it's going to exert too much influence on other agencies and branches; for example, in the examples you cited, opinions were requested from the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel, a branch of the DOJ) on the legality of various activities.

Now, the attorneys in the OLC are extremely intelligent, the cream of the law school and clerkship crop. But, there's a question of whether the executive branch was exerting any influence on those attorneys, thus affecting the opinions given by OLC attorneys (like the opinions done by Yoo and Bybee, for example). You can see the problem - otherwise brilliant people, influenced by pressure, use their intelligence to put out a memo that starts with the conclusion and works backward in the reasoning. The reasoning isn't great, but it's passed along to people who take it as gospel truth (because, usually, those OLC opinions effectively become the law).

I think that's where a big part of the problem comes in, and it's happened other times in history. You look at Lincoln and Roosevelt, and they took executive power to new heights; not everything they did was positive, but they've been lauded in the history books. You look at Nixon, and it's worked the other way; who knows how it will work with Bush.

I honestly don't know where President Obama will go with it, but my early sense is that he has an expansive view of the power of the executive branch.

[ASTalumna06]

/hijack/ ... but not really, because this is what the thread was originally about:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28760946/?GT1=43001

“Despite the formal attire and celebrity entertainment, balls aren't overly fancy affairs. Lines often are long to get in, go to the bathroom or check your coat, and the food is heavy on vegetables with dip and cheese cubes.
In a sign, perhaps, of the tough economic times, guests who already paid anywhere from $75 for a ticket to thousands more for a package deal had to buy their own drinks served in small plastic cups. Beer went for $6, cocktails for $9 and champagne for $12.
People were standing in line outside Union Station to get into the Eastern States Ball an hour and a half after it started. Because of very limited seating at the Western ball, a number of attendees in long gowns and fancy dress plopped cross-legged on the floor.
"This is what happens in a down economy. No chairs, no highboys — it's the floor and plastic cups," commented ballgoer Brig Lawson, 38, of Las Vegas.”

...maybe the Bush’s should have bought some nice glasses, too

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

The way it's outlined in the Constitution (Article II, Section I), the President doesn't have to take the oath on a Bible; the Constitution just gives the wording of the oath (it doesn't include any language about "God" or other supreme being) and no other guidance.

I'm guessing that using the Bible is just tradition, and that the President wouldn't need to swear on the Bible if he or she did not want to do so.

ETA: For the court proceedings I've seen (trials and hearings), I haven't seen a Bible used; the witness just had to raise their right hand.

There ya have it, especially the bolded.

I can't recall the last time I saw the Bible used during a court proceeding. It was probably on television.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

ETA: For the court proceedings I've seen (trials and hearings), I haven't seen a Bible used; the witness just had to raise their right hand.

As far as I know, no courts still use the Bible for swearing in - your oath is legitimized (in a legal sense) on its own accord.

YMMV in, like, rural Alabama state courts, but who cares?

It would be much funnier to see the Bible whipped out during depositions - court reporters would have to be ordained, it would be a whole scene.