![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
I'm going to start with the good news otherwise I'll go off on a tangent and completely forget to tell everyone the only piece of information that is making me happy these days: I got a job!!!
I know, I know. It doesn't sound thrilling but I work at Barnes and Noble and get amazing discounts and opportunities so I'm extremely happy. I already love it there.
It was built back in 2006 so this past June marked its two year anniversary so it's still new and amazingly kept. Talbot's, White and Black, Chico's, and Bread Co. are all in the same plaza and one minute away is Chesterfield Mall which was just newly remodeled a few years ago as well so it's amazing.
That was short and sweet but now onto the bad news...
Barack Obama is going to win the title of the next president of the United States. I'm a senior right now so I'm considering moving out of the country for college.
First off, I'm not a crazy radical but I do believe Obama's time is not now. I think in another four or eight years he'd make a great president but not for 2008. Let me tell you why.
The founders of the Constitution believed in what we call a system of checks and balances, meaning no one authority would have extreme power like a dictatorship or the monarchy they extracted themselves from.
The United States has three branches: the executive (president, his cabinet, EOC, etc.), the legislative (Congress, divided into the House of Representatives with 435 members of which are constantly being redistributed every ten years according to a state's increase or decrease in population, and the Senate with a total of 100 members, two from each state), and the judiciary (which we most notably know of as the Supreme Court but there is an entire pipe line of courts including district courts, etc.).
The purpose of each branch is to "check" the other one, making sure it has no more power than the next. A common misconception when voters here president's speeches, is that the president can actually do those things. Not true! Without the approval of Congress, the president has very limited rights, and even those rights are often scrutinized and called upon by Congress and the Supreme Court (i.e. declaring war, like President Bush did without the approval of Congress).
Here's where we run into the problem, though. When (not if) Obama becomes president, the executive branch will be liberal. Now, Representatives run every two years and Senators every six years (but only 1/3 run every six years because of the cycle, meaning every two years, there will be some Senators running for reelection as an incumbent). We're expecting the Senate to have no less than 55 democrats elected, more likely 60, causing the Senate to have a majority of liberals. Same idea with the House.
When we have a Congressional majority of liberals, that allows more leeway for the president if he is a liberal, too, because it makes it much easier for a bill to get passed (after it makes it through committee, etc.).
Now all that is left is the judiciary branch. Judges are always nonpartisan, however they are selected in a partisan format. For example, Justice Antonin Scalia (a controversial and right-winged Supreme Court judge) was nominated for his position based on his beliefs. So a president choose a judge based on his beliefs.
With two positions open on supreme courts, with two Bush nominees not being passed by Congress, it is more likely than not that those need-to-be-filled-positions will roll over into Obama's presidency.
Then we have four other judges who were elected by Reagan and Clinton expected to retire when Obama becomes president, allowing for Obama to choose those four appointees as well. And with a majority of democrats in Congress, all six suggestions are more likely to pass.
That leaves America with a liberal executive, legislative, and judiciary branch. When each branch is almost in accordance with the other, where are the checks and balances? They begin to cease to exist. This is not good for our nation!
For those who believe in pro-life or an other Supreme Court controversial issue, it's most likely going to swing to the left because the entire court system will be shifted.
People, please listen to what I'm saying. Even if you don't like John McCain and Sarah Palin, America thrives on checks and balances...it's how the founders hoped to keep America functioning. When there is no tension in Washington, and everything goes smoothly, it's actually a bad thing...trust me on this. There needs to be conflict in order for their to be success.
Save me from having to live through four years (oh, God, please no more) of an Obama administration.
And if you have anything to say on this, please be respectful. I honestly don't care if you disagree with me...I actually enjoy debates, but let's do so under friendly terms, eh?
I know, I know. It doesn't sound thrilling but I work at Barnes and Noble and get amazing discounts and opportunities so I'm extremely happy. I already love it there.
It was built back in 2006 so this past June marked its two year anniversary so it's still new and amazingly kept. Talbot's, White and Black, Chico's, and Bread Co. are all in the same plaza and one minute away is Chesterfield Mall which was just newly remodeled a few years ago as well so it's amazing.
That was short and sweet but now onto the bad news...
Barack Obama is going to win the title of the next president of the United States. I'm a senior right now so I'm considering moving out of the country for college.
First off, I'm not a crazy radical but I do believe Obama's time is not now. I think in another four or eight years he'd make a great president but not for 2008. Let me tell you why.
The founders of the Constitution believed in what we call a system of checks and balances, meaning no one authority would have extreme power like a dictatorship or the monarchy they extracted themselves from.
The United States has three branches: the executive (president, his cabinet, EOC, etc.), the legislative (Congress, divided into the House of Representatives with 435 members of which are constantly being redistributed every ten years according to a state's increase or decrease in population, and the Senate with a total of 100 members, two from each state), and the judiciary (which we most notably know of as the Supreme Court but there is an entire pipe line of courts including district courts, etc.).
The purpose of each branch is to "check" the other one, making sure it has no more power than the next. A common misconception when voters here president's speeches, is that the president can actually do those things. Not true! Without the approval of Congress, the president has very limited rights, and even those rights are often scrutinized and called upon by Congress and the Supreme Court (i.e. declaring war, like President Bush did without the approval of Congress).
Here's where we run into the problem, though. When (not if) Obama becomes president, the executive branch will be liberal. Now, Representatives run every two years and Senators every six years (but only 1/3 run every six years because of the cycle, meaning every two years, there will be some Senators running for reelection as an incumbent). We're expecting the Senate to have no less than 55 democrats elected, more likely 60, causing the Senate to have a majority of liberals. Same idea with the House.
When we have a Congressional majority of liberals, that allows more leeway for the president if he is a liberal, too, because it makes it much easier for a bill to get passed (after it makes it through committee, etc.).
Now all that is left is the judiciary branch. Judges are always nonpartisan, however they are selected in a partisan format. For example, Justice Antonin Scalia (a controversial and right-winged Supreme Court judge) was nominated for his position based on his beliefs. So a president choose a judge based on his beliefs.
With two positions open on supreme courts, with two Bush nominees not being passed by Congress, it is more likely than not that those need-to-be-filled-positions will roll over into Obama's presidency.
Then we have four other judges who were elected by Reagan and Clinton expected to retire when Obama becomes president, allowing for Obama to choose those four appointees as well. And with a majority of democrats in Congress, all six suggestions are more likely to pass.
That leaves America with a liberal executive, legislative, and judiciary branch. When each branch is almost in accordance with the other, where are the checks and balances? They begin to cease to exist. This is not good for our nation!
For those who believe in pro-life or an other Supreme Court controversial issue, it's most likely going to swing to the left because the entire court system will be shifted.
People, please listen to what I'm saying. Even if you don't like John McCain and Sarah Palin, America thrives on checks and balances...it's how the founders hoped to keep America functioning. When there is no tension in Washington, and everything goes smoothly, it's actually a bad thing...trust me on this. There needs to be conflict in order for their to be success.
Save me from having to live through four years (oh, God, please no more) of an Obama administration.
And if you have anything to say on this, please be respectful. I honestly don't care if you disagree with me...I actually enjoy debates, but let's do so under friendly terms, eh?
Current Mood: 
scared
scared10 comments | speak
anxious