I prefer a collective executive-to put all executive power in the hands of one man is both a huge responsability, and means that he can have far too much influence. The legislature and the judicary self-regulate in a way but there is no such way in the presidency, particually with its huge powers in foreign affairs. The fact you have a man who can declare war without an censure from congress (Okay, you need a resoloution, and there is the war powers act but both are very weak and the PResident can circumnavigate them easilty) worries me immensly.

__________________
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. - Art of War, Sun-Tzu, Chapter 2, Paragraph 6

"An eye for an eye makes everyone blind"-Gandi

My professor explained (and he certainly could have been wrong) that one of the reasons the age requirement was instituted in the Constitution was to prevent any executive from essentially "handing over" the presidency to his son. There was a legitimate fear, based on the monarchical governments that the framers knew so well, that some presidents may try to pressure their contemporaries to vote for their son who, presumably, would be under the age of 35.

I don't know if this is the right answer. It seems obvious that the "maturity" issue would have been a large factor. But this is just what I was told.

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will

I did say exectutive power mate-I know the US constitution. ITs still a huge concentration of power in one man, particually as executive power is a probably the most important of the 3 (IMO), especally with the extra powers on top of that. Sometimes you need one person to make a decision, true, but there is no veical for discussion and true censure for those discussions in the US system.

__________________
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. - Art of War, Sun-Tzu, Chapter 2, Paragraph 6

"An eye for an eye makes everyone blind"-Gandi

Don't give me that "stick to the topic" shit.

I was replying to the original post by Solletica...the first sentence of it, in fact.

You continue the back and forth we were having in an ineffectual way and then try to declare it over? Well, um, no, it ain't.

You have not refuted my point that his entire schtick (Letterman, Daily Show, stand up) is, in part, built upon the fact that he's portraying GWB as being "stupid". So either you agree with me or, as I suspect, you don't watch his show, ever.

As for the "35" question - it is the same answer I give to all Constitutional questions: "Because they said so. If you don't like it, amend it."

Hey, Marsha and your bug-loving boyfriend Harvey Klinger, I don't care if you think 16 is the new 25, you can't be POTUS until 35. So there.

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

The Daily Show's entire "schtick" is making fun of the media. GWB makes himself look silly and TDS just points it out. Just like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and whoever happens to say or do something incredibly stupid on t.v. The current administrations antics is pure comedy gold and if you have a problem with that then perhaps you should tell them to stop acting like a group of country bumpkins.

Mostly I'm fine with the limits placed in the Constitution regarding the age of the POTUS.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

i say we burn the constitution, make the sone of a nazi officier ARNOLD the new furur, surrender our armies to the UN, merge with canada and mexico, us an amero, live in a socialist society resembling karl marx and zionist communists beliefs...

why fight it?

__________________
Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial.
Ariel Sharon
CONGRESSMAN LARRY McDONALD EXPOSES THE NEW WORLD ORDER 1983

Sign me up!

(for the militia that is)

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

Because its insane? I presume your joking.

__________________
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. - Art of War, Sun-Tzu, Chapter 2, Paragraph 6

"An eye for an eye makes everyone blind"-Gandi

Well, the proof is in the pudding. The system works.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

DOnt feed the trolls.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

That doesn't seem to be a sound basis for changing something just because you didn't live back then and didn't know what they were thinking.
It makes good sense to me, and if I were to change anything I'd probably make a MAXIMUM age requirement.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Oh yeah baby...WOOOO, if it was Bush VS Obama, it would be an even more historic win for Bush than 04.

Where as with your system here is no independant judiciary or seperation of powers at all and forget power in one man's hand, you can have totally unelected government's and PM's...like now!

Brown wanted a written constitution and leave war powers to parliament and voters are telling him how far up his ass he can stick that.

Unitary Executive power is great and a Federalist/non parliamentary system like we have is the best in the world.

Hey, I never said I liked out system-I would like a mix between European/American system in Britian-however we don't have unelected goverments or PM's-you vote for a party not a leader. The judicary is also basically intderpendent as of now due to the 2005 CR Act.

But anyways, that not the point really.

__________________
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. - Art of War, Sun-Tzu, Chapter 2, Paragraph 6

"An eye for an eye makes everyone blind"-Gandi

It is not independant, even with the changes the highest court in the land is the House of Lord, all peers who bought their peerages with donations to Levy and co.

Also if a bill is brought by he leader of the commons and it fails, all that needs to happen is it is brought up a couple more times and after 3 attempts, if it fails all 3 times it becomes law automatically anyway...unbelievable or what?