“Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.”

A good light hearted perspective at the loss of liberty.

I would trust no man on earth with such power, except myself.

Not even Archer?

Herein is the perfect example of how government can perpetually pass de facto laws, completely against "natural" or "de jure" law, without any resistance of the people; somehow the American people came to the understanding that "law" is whatever government says it is... such is a gross and total misunderstanding of how the founding fathers perceived and talked of law. So sad.

The mental level of the Clinton administration.

"PATHETIC"

David, I wouldn't trust you either. hehehe

Note the contrast in the way of thinking between the Founders and the power-hungry politicians of today. Adams feared too much power in the hands of government ... most politicians today crave it and will do anything to get it. Imagine a president today who took the office to serve his country out of duty, not desire for power ... who would refuse a salary to help the country ... who would step down when the people wanted to make him king. This is what George Washington did. Are there no men like this in our country today?

It takes much more than that final signing to make it a law, think of all of the backroom deals which go into constructing the text in the first place... and then of all of the hard work to turn it from just words on paper into true law (understood and observed by all). So, on the surface correct & valid, but oh so incomplete... but then again, it is really all that most Americans can understand today, and thus one of the best minds in ages in the office had a staff which had to dumb everything down for their employers (us)... says a lot about how bad King George's group is when even we can see how down right dumb they are!

A great (political) mind with no morals or scruples is no asset.

David's statement is probably tongue-in-cheek but not an uncommon sentiment among the biggest abusers of power -- 'no one can be trusted with absolute power -- except me'. As for me, I do not think I can be trusted with absolute power any more than I would trust David with it (God forbid). It is the difference between humility and self-righteousness. There are those that wish to impose their will upon others, and there are those that wish only to live and let live. I prefer the latter. Both Clinton and Bush are in the former.

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.

Jack, The office of president was originally intended to be a primarily administrative office. It never was intended to wield the kind of power it does today. Unlike in Washington's day, todays president is more like a king or an emporer. By the same token, the federal government was never intended to have the kind of power they hold today. The seat of government was originally intended to be in the individual states.

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

The executive branch was/is to be the activation or enforcement branch of that which the legislation passes (military, police, etc.). That's why certain executives have authority to say which order(s) or law(s) they will enforce; unless of course there is sufficient legislature to override the executive's objection. The chief executive is the presiding administrator (only having authority by the Constitution or the legislature to implement the law and order as given to it) A king, whether or not born into the office, would indicate a power to create his/its own law, procedure, etc. and then enforce the same.

Okay, Mike. Whatever you say. You lost me about half way through. (whew) You should have been a politician yoursself because you can talk around things till nobody knows what you said. I wonder if you really do yourself Is the administration the executive branch alone, or do you consider the other two branches part of it too? Is the chief executive an administrator, besides being commander-in-chief of the military, or not? Don't bother trying to explain it again, Mike, please! Once is enough

Jack, lol, ok so it made sense when I wrote it. I should have read what I wrote, then I would have notice what I left out and the oopses. Sorry about that, another day

Thank you Mike. I'll accept that and I understand it. I've written things too, that sounded good ...till I re-read it I think more of you now than I did yesterday

What a disgrace that the "country of laws and not people" would be proudly denied by Clinton and cronies like Begala (not saying the surrounding Bushes are better); Clinton felt it a Nation of men, and I wonder did Begala say this when Clinton banned guns or speech of satire against running candidates? "Apathy is the root of all evil's enabling." -- Gölök Zoltán Leenderdt Franco Buday http://www.archive.being-ones-self.org/quotesz/gzlfb.txt

fascist moron

These people are so cavalier about depriving us of our rights that they are either evil or stupid.

Useful Idiot speaking about the present Tyrant-in-Chief, perhaps?