Bolton appointed US 'ambassador' to UN

[Major Tom]

this should help you out.

http://www.govspot.com/features/kids.htm

http://www.kids.gov/k_funstuff.htm

Cor - how very informative

 

[pbman]

http://www.kids.gov/k_funstuff.htm

Cor - how very informative

Its a good plae for a few locals to start, they seam to think its the senats job to apoint ambasadors or to control who the presidnet appoints.

Its not.

And if they had held the vote in a timely manner they would have had more of a say in it.......

 

[Major Tom]

Its a good plae for a few locals to start, they seam to think its the senats job to apoint ambasadors or to control who the presidnet appoints.

Its not.

And if they had held the vote in a timely manner they would have had more of a say in it.......

http://www.kids.gov/k_gov.htm

of course this site is entirely impartial

"Find out how kids like you are supporting our American troops."

 

[pbman]

http://www.kids.gov/k_gov.htm

of course this site is entirely impartial

"Find out how kids like you are supporting our American troops."

Then google up another, if you don't like that one.

The fact remanins that many here are a bit weak, on the separation of powers in the us gov't.

 

[Major Tom]

Then google up another, if you don't like that one.

The fact remanins that many here are a bit weak, on the separation of powers in the us gov't.

you can talk about seperation of powers all you like - but what amounts to a presidential veto over the other branches of government doesn;t sound very democratic to me.

We've got the Royal Prerogitive of course - another way for the executive to circumvent the other bodies in government that may just have a point of view that better represents the popular viewpoint.

I'm not sure that a single-person executive should have a veto over a large elected legislative body, really.

 

[Jangla]

That is the topic.

You guys are pretending its unhead of, for the president to apoint people.

Its not.

It happens all the time.

Our three branches of gov't are equal, the senate can't dictate to bush who he appoints, that would be a real blatant abuse of power, not the pretend one you acuse bush of.

this should help you out.

http://www.govspot.com/features/kids.htm

The topic is quite clearly regarding Bush's appointment of Bolton - Clinton has nothing to do with it.

Now do some research and you'll find that this is the first time in 50 years since the UN envoy has been appointed in this way.

If you want to introduce other historic presidents to the thread to justify the position, justify it properly, back it up with evidence (especially evidence of benefits to the democratic process ) and stop pointing fingers like a scorned child, ffs.

'He did it first' is not ample justification for anything the leader of a super power does (in fact it's hardly a justification for a child, let alone a full grown....chimp); you're going to have to do better than that.

 

[nino_savatte]

Last time a checked we had a comfortable majority in the senate.

If that is the case why did Bush feel the need to use the Presidential veto? That, in anyone's book, is an example of a complete disregard for the legislative branch of government.

 

[nino_savatte]

ROFLMAO

How many times do you think clinton did the same thing?

Any excuse to get a cheap point in. If I'm not mistaken, Clinton is no longer President and is unlikely ever to become one again.

 

[nino_savatte]

It's official: John Bolton is Yosemite Sam!

Told ya!