The office of president is, and always has been, chief executive, or administrator, if you prefer, Mike. It takes a certain type of person to assume that kind of power and all men who would be president must have it. Do you make a distinction between administrator, administrater, or executive? I never knew there was much difference. They mean to administer the law in the 18th century as in the 21st A king is one who assumes power by birthright, as say, a Bush, or an Adams

I would agree with Archer, but it isn't fair to use Clinton or Bush as examples of those who wish to impose their will on others. All men who would be president think they know what's best, includint Washington, who accepted no salary, but did accepted the power that comes with the office. That's what they all want - salary or no salary. Many of our politicians are independently wealthy or could make much more outside, but feel they are using their power right. Even Bush still thinks he knows best.

You are more correct than you realize, David. It has often been said the ideal government is a benevolent dictator ... someone who knows what is best for everyone and has the power to provide it. That's ideal ...as in utopia.

I can imagine certain people agreeing with that ...Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush come to miind

You might be right about our monetary system, Archer, who knows? ..but I would paraphrase Churchill and say our quasi-governmental, central banking system may be the worst system in the world ...except for all the rest. It's true, it can and has made serious errors and demands competent governors, but I think the likes of Greenspan, or Bernanke, are qualified.. No system can simply run by itself with no human control, without violent upheavals of boom and bust. It's a delicate balance. I would hate to have to come up with a better way, though. The Fed is a powerful institution and its governors must have the good of the country at heart ...no doubt about that.

And most importantly, Joe, the executive who ignores it. If we don't pay attention the Constitution will become a control on the citizens, not a control on the government

Are you still trying to pin a lie on Truman, David? What he did may have been controversial, but wasn't illegal and he didn't lie about it. After all, it was war - a real, declared war, not like this so-called war with Iraq. He said "The buck stops here" He owned up to it and didnt't lie, as Reagan did in Iran-Contra, selling weapons to a terrorist nation to pay for his illegal operation in Nicaragua, then saying he didn't know anything about it. What would your opinion be if Clinton had done such a thing? Tell me again what Truman lied about.That was your charge,

The template for liberty was laid down by the founders of our country through our Constitution, but it is the duty of all successive generations to protect those liberties from forces within and without. The problem comes when rampant ideology of some limits the liberty of others. That's where the Supreme Court comes in, to see that someone's liberty is not denied by another's ideology. It's a difficul task, but somebody has to do it. When I hear expressions like "a Supreme Court out of control", as I have heard, I wonder where they've been. There is no control over the Supreme Court and that's the way it was designed. It was to be apolitical by being appointed for life and beholden to no one, just their own good judgement. But when they do encounter unconstitutional activities or laws, there is always a legislature to rewrite the law or an executive to enforce it constitutionally. The whole idea is to spread the power so no one can has absolute power. There is always a challenge from somewhere.

You lost me, Mike. I don't know what you're driving at. Are you saying all presidents lie with their oath to defend the Constitution,then ruling by decree as a tyrant, instead of going through the legislature? I won't argue your little nuances and personal opinions about executive privelege. This president seems obsessed with executive privilege extending to all manner of apponintments and decrees; but I'll leave that to them to defend. Ar least there are only two more years to put up with it. Only Congress can make a law, with the president's consent, or without it, if they can overide his veto. There are certain things presidents can do by decree under certain conditions, but the Constitution still rules --- or it's Heil der fuhrer

You are so right, EGL. While the administration is obsessed with terrorists destroying our nation, they are eating away at the Constitution from the inside, and, as the quote says, the Constitution is the only protection of our liberty . Who cares if our liberty is gone from outside or inside? Maybe defenders of the Patriot Act think it's okay if it's doe by their great leader

Did Truman lie about anything, as you claimed he did, David? What he did after the war was perfectly legal. Russia was our ally and they did as much (who knows, more or less?) than we did to defeat HItler. They were the first ones into Berlin, if you remember. But you said Truman lied. I would never say Democrats are good and Republicans are bad, You're the one who claims Democrats are bad and Republicans are good. I said we have the most unscrupulous, lying administration since Nixon and you keep saying, what about this or that Democrat, with no examples.

I choose to take him at his word. I don't know what he could be charged with, other than to refuse ti pay a tax, short of violent disobedience, which was not his way. I wouldnt have refused to pay a tax and go to jail, for any length of time, as he was prepared to do. I don't know what the original sentence might have been, but, like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, he was not a violent man. He was simply an abolishionist. I suppose he could have revealed his activity with the underground railroad. That might have done it

and I agreed with what you said, David. I was making the same point that Thoreau had the courage to suffer for others, at the cost of his own freedom if other people were being held in slavery, but he never engaged in violence to let him serve much time.

How about Truman, David? ..or Murtha, or Rangel, et al? You might not like what Truman did in settling WWII, but he didn't lie about anything. Can you remember those days? You seem to know a lot og things I don't remember. You keep bringing up names without giving what lies they told. Outside of Reagan in Nicaragua and his Iran-Contra deal, which he denied for a long time, I can't think of any liars like the current president. You haven't named any but LBJ I can agree with, but he came before Nixon who first raised the spector of lying public officials. People know better now. Please start giving some examples or quit bringing up new names.

What did the speaker-to-be ever say that was untrue? Did anyone lose his/her life for it? Maybe some political lives. That's known as cleaning (the) House... a necessary thing for getting on with good government.

You are correct David. Actual time spent in jail by Thoreau was one night, although he only came out when the debt he refused to pay was paid without his knowledge or consent. He had intended to stay as his form of protest. He lived at Waldeb Pond in a sort of self-imposed imprisonment, and even spoke metaphorically of having gone in as a youth and come out as a gray-headed man.. I don't condone his policy of civil disobedience by shirking responsiblity. Depositing or donating his obligation is one thing, but refusing to pay what others do pay is wrong in my mind.. Nevertheless; nights spent in jail by Thoreau: one.

I agree about LBJ, and there may be others. The Gulf of Tonkin was a lie. I was delighted when he withdrew from running for re-election a few years later, but we got Nixon, who promised to end the mess in Vietnam, but only exacerbated it by expanding it into Laos and Cambodia, violating international law His "secret plan" was nothing more than LBJ's failed plan of vietnamization At least both men had the decency to quit when they realized their mistakes. I still contend we have the biggest liar in office now. I wonder if he ever told the complete truth about anything.

A grand jury does not convict anyone, or even judge guilt or innocence. It investigates if there is enough evidence to try in court. It merely indicts. Only a trial court can convict, no matter how many jurors, if any..

Thoreau actually lived what he spoke. He spent much time in prison in protest, not for his own condition, but that of others. A man of civil disobedience for the plight of others. He felt no honor living free so long as others were in slavery. He would rather be in prison in honorable protest.

There was Nixon's, of course, David. Many of his administration went to jail for it, and Nixon would iave, had he not worked out a pardon with his successor. Name another with blatant, outright lies, where thousands died because of them. You'd say Clinton, I'm sure, but the only thing he "lied" about was a trivial thing he should never have been asked about in the first place ..not a crime. No one died. and he never called his accusers unpatriotic either ..just a vast right-wing conspiracy..

And when this administration encounters whistleblowers, opposing corruption in government, they are the ones called unpatriotic; damned if they do and damned if they don't

I hate to think of a "necessity" of pretending to do one thing while actually doing another. I would prefer the practice of pretending to ...etc. What a pity we need laws to recognize ideas representing the exact opposite of established conduct.

As the author says, it's only a matter of degree - one hour to a lifetime, but that's a pretty large degree. The victim might not even notice a measly hour - or rather his survivors - because he won't know in either case. But the point he was really making is not the degree part but the attempt to hide the facts in convoluted legalisms. That's the important fact and amounts to deceit..

Of course a prosecutor can use his grand jury, to "indict anyone, at any time, for almost anything" ...if he thinks there is enough evidence in a plaintiff's claim to bring it to trial, but it still remains for a jury of peers to convict.

Another way of describing the "Golden Rule of citizenship is given by Ben Franklin:, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" A satisfactory society is more than majority rule, whether by direct vote or representative electors. It is the majority respecting and providing for the well-being of the minority. As