Bush as abusive husband

[reconnor]

I really like the analogy this blogger, Sanford Levinson, at The New Republic makes, although his take on our Constitution is crazy cynical.

"2) Even if the Democrats do indeed get both the House and Senate (and therefore, among other things, will be expected to offer serious and substantive legislation), the egregious Mr. Bush will continue to

Comments

[dlatimer]

Presidents can be impeached (a vote of no confidence, in effect - although the letter of the law requires something slightly more than "because we don't like him"). A crime must be proposed for the president to stand trial to be dismissed.

What is an example of a "constitutional veto"? Isn't that what the judicial branch does (regardless of constitutional wording)? Presidential vetos are completely different from what the author proposes (for a purpose).

Plus there is not "countermand" without the ability for congress to override a veto (2/3 vote). Basically, the 2/3 majority prevents a tyranny of the slim majority (in the executive branch, there is only the president, hence 100% of the vote goes one way or the other - contrast with the executive council of 12 that the Governor of NH must go to to ratify all his executive decisions).

So yeah, his constitutional view is quite skewed.

Of course, I take the 5th on the rest of the article ;)