When the president of the United States is elected, he is given many powers. A few of those powers are not commonly known among Americans, such as the president has the power called 'signing statements'.
Which is when the president can say whether a bill is good or whether it needs more work, it is all up to him and what he feels is right. Some people may agree with this privilege he gets, because is voted president for a reason, and that is a powerful position. Others disagree with this statement because of how often they can use this power, when they can use this power, and the fact that the president does not have to have much reason behind why he is doing a signing statement.
In the article "Read the Fine Print" is speaks on the presidency of George W. Bush, whom used his power of signing statements quite frequently. When the article speaks on President Bush using the power it is said that he used is as "part of a strategy to expand presidential powers at the expense of Congress and the courts." ('Read the Fine Print' NY Times p. 1). I believe that the article is titled the way it is, because whatever the president writes is how it goes. If he messes up, its still a done deal. This aggravates Americans, because why should one person determine whether a bill is fit for the country or not. What if his opinion isn't right? What if the bill has a loop hole and creates problems?
The government likes to tell people only what they feel fit, meaning that they don't necessarily tell us every little detail of the things that they do. They share only the information that are required to share, so not many people know of all the small details of the powers the each political person holds. With that, not a lot of citizens realize what the president can do, like vetoing a bill just because he doesn't think it sounds appealing or because that's not how he wants it to be. The fact that one person has this power over our country can be a little scary to think about. What if he becomes power hungry? What if he is feeling selfish and only see what is fit for him?
Signing statement is a very independent power that the president holds, because it requires no one but himself. He doesn't need team work or any one to help him. So when the president acts on this power, he is using zero team work and is taking charge in a way that may not always be beneficial to our country or even our world.
When writing up a bill, it takes a lot of team work from the congress. There is a long process and debate over what should be in it, what should be said, and how it should be said. Which is good, because it is taking the opinions of a mass amount of people, but when it comes to signing statements the president can veto the bill as fast as they congress can say the word 'bill'. Which seems a little bit unfair if you ask me.
In the article "A Slip of the Pen" it speaks on exactly that. The fairness of the power. How can one person determine what is right? In the article it is said that this is "the threat to our Republic..," (NY Time p. 1). This is a very true statement, because of the fact that this could be their way of taking away the rights of the people and forming a dictatorship, in a sense, because of all the power that the president contains, who is to say that that isn't dictating the way the governement works?
Which is when the president can say whether a bill is good or whether it needs more work, it is all up to him and what he feels is right. Some people may agree with this privilege he gets, because is voted president for a reason, and that is a powerful position. Others disagree with this statement because of how often they can use this power, when they can use this power, and the fact that the president does not have to have much reason behind why he is doing a signing statement.
In the article "Read the Fine Print" is speaks on the presidency of George W. Bush, whom used his power of signing statements quite frequently. When the article speaks on President Bush using the power it is said that he used is as "part of a strategy to expand presidential powers at the expense of Congress and the courts." ('Read the Fine Print' NY Times p. 1). I believe that the article is titled the way it is, because whatever the president writes is how it goes. If he messes up, its still a done deal. This aggravates Americans, because why should one person determine whether a bill is fit for the country or not. What if his opinion isn't right? What if the bill has a loop hole and creates problems?
The government likes to tell people only what they feel fit, meaning that they don't necessarily tell us every little detail of the things that they do. They share only the information that are required to share, so not many people know of all the small details of the powers the each political person holds. With that, not a lot of citizens realize what the president can do, like vetoing a bill just because he doesn't think it sounds appealing or because that's not how he wants it to be. The fact that one person has this power over our country can be a little scary to think about. What if he becomes power hungry? What if he is feeling selfish and only see what is fit for him?
Signing statement is a very independent power that the president holds, because it requires no one but himself. He doesn't need team work or any one to help him. So when the president acts on this power, he is using zero team work and is taking charge in a way that may not always be beneficial to our country or even our world.
When writing up a bill, it takes a lot of team work from the congress. There is a long process and debate over what should be in it, what should be said, and how it should be said. Which is good, because it is taking the opinions of a mass amount of people, but when it comes to signing statements the president can veto the bill as fast as they congress can say the word 'bill'. Which seems a little bit unfair if you ask me.
In the article "A Slip of the Pen" it speaks on exactly that. The fairness of the power. How can one person determine what is right? In the article it is said that this is "the threat to our Republic..," (NY Time p. 1). This is a very true statement, because of the fact that this could be their way of taking away the rights of the people and forming a dictatorship, in a sense, because of all the power that the president contains, who is to say that that isn't dictating the way the governement works?
RSS Feed