The security threat of unchecked presidential power

[hismajesty]

I hardly think his power is unchecked. The courts will challenge his power and theres not much he can do if they overrule him. Aside from trying to remove said judge or what not but if that starts to happen he runs the major risk of starting a civil war.

He can't remove a judge, they're appointed for life.

[MyndFyre]

I hardly think his power is unchecked. The courts will challenge his power and theres not much he can do if they overrule him. Aside from trying to remove said judge or what not but if that starts to happen he runs the major risk of starting a civil war.

On the whole spying issue, I think it depends largely on what they are doing with the information they intercept. When they see something suspecious if they are using it as a reason to increase security around a building/whatever then its ok. If they decide to keep a closer watch on said person and seek warrants so that they can press charges if they get something terrorist related then its ok. However, if they just go out there and arrest the person without proper warrants and such then its not ok. From what I've heard/seen so far this is not the case as of yet so thats good.

I agree 100%; it's hardly unchecked, and the fact that there are a jillion news stories going around about it further demonstrates that political opponents are unwilling to leave presidential power around unchecked.

About spying: what the fuck is wrong with you people?  I swear to god, what do you people think they're doing with it?

Bush: Heh, heh, hey Bill, listen to this one.
Clinton: (listens) Damn, that was some racy phone sex Dubya.
Bush: I'm sure glad nobody's checking on presidential power!

Seriously?  Are you planning on calling someone overseas and talking about blowing up some federal building somewhere?  Then I'm glad they're listening to you.  If you're not, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

[Kp]

If you're not, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

None, assuming that's all they're using it for.  If, on the other hand, they're using that as the starting point for more general surveillance...

[Adron]

I don't think the man that is in charge of our armed forces, and basically country, should have so much power limited by other branches. I applaud Bush for taking the initiative and awarding more powers to the Executive - I think it's great. I don't have evidence or anything like that to support this as it's just my opinion of how things should be.

The reason that is bad is that your executive could be Hitler. You have to assume that he is Hitler when you consider whether to give him more power or not.

[MyndFyre]

I don't think the man that is in charge of our armed forces, and basically country, should have so much power limited by other branches. I applaud Bush for taking the initiative and awarding more powers to the Executive - I think it's great. I don't have evidence or anything like that to support this as it's just my opinion of how things should be.

The reason that is bad is that your executive could be Hitler. You have to assume that he is Hitler when you consider whether to give him more power or not.

I'm pretty sure our country would take away Hitler's power.  I'd also like to believe that they wouldn't elect him in the first place.

Note that Hitler wasn't quiet and seditious about his views.

[Adron]

I'm pretty sure our country would take away Hitler's power.

Which is why it is important that power is balanced.

[Arta]

How many of you read the article? Bruce Schneier presents a detailed and convincing argument, in my opinion. If you think he's wrong, can you address the substance of his argument?