Correction: I double-checked Article 2, Section 3 and it does say, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", (sorry) though this is vague as how much care is not specified. I think history demonstrates that the amount of care has varied over the years and Signing Statements are being used to indicate the President's intentions in that respect.
For example, a quick Google search reveals many hits where people have complained that the Bush administration hasn't been enforcing various laws (I'm sure examples can be found for Clinton, etc...).
He is, however, as part of his oath...bound to enforce the laws of the land. The ones that are on the books, and the ones he signs into law, he is indeed compelled to enforce them. He has no choice on that.
That's not technically true. The Presidential Oath is this:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution says nothing about the President enforcing any laws. See Article 2. Constitutional topics discuss the President's duty to "ensures all laws are carried out", but this is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Presidential signing statements maintain particular potency with federal executive agencies, since these agencies are often responsible for the administration and enforcement of federal laws.
In addition, the President can pardon anyone for any reason, so he can prevent someone from being prosecuted for an infraction - making a law technically unenforced.
The President can also direct funding (or not) to impact the implementation of a law, like No Child Left Behind which has never been fully funded by the Bush Administration, eventhough they championed the bill:
Organizations have particularly criticized the unwillingness of the federal government to fully fund the act. Noting that appropriations bills always originate in the House of Representatives, it is true that neither the Senate nor the White House has even requested federal funding up to the authorized levels for several of the act's main provisions. For example, President Bush requested only $13.3 of a possible $22.75 billion in 2006.
He as president simply does not have the power to carry through with his promises along the campaign trail. The president makes NO laws.
While that's true, the power of the President can be exercised in other effective ways. He could end the war(s) tomorrow with just a signature (for example). He has the power to NOT enforce laws enacted by Congress. He can control some actions of the Federal government by decree (ban off-shore drilling).
I agree that not all of the candidate's promises (any candidate) are achievable without suport of the Congress, but some goals can be accomplished in other ways.
Hook your Iridium phone (and/or INMARSAT link if possible) up to a Linux box running Asterisk or TelAlert and use it as a login platform and/or use DTMF (or voice commands).
\ looks a lot like / and is easy to accidentally flip, especially for unix users
Um, that should be "especially for DOS / Windows users". Unix was here first dumb asses
Furthermore, using the character, that just about every other programming language uses for the escape character, as an operator (or separator) is just plain stupid -- I'm also talking to you Microsoft, but that horse has definitely left the barn...
When I begin to enter a search in Firefox's search bar, a list of suggestions is automatically downloaded.
Turn this feature off. Click on the downarrow to the left of the search box, select "Manage Search Engines" and de-select "Show search suggestions".
You can also disable this (annoying) feature for Google page searches from their Preferences page. This sets "SG=0" in the Google PREF cookie -- which I've set in my proxy server so it's effectively disabled for all my browsers.
Seriously? Does the scale of the alleged / assumed offenses warrent crippling (or even monitoring) the Internet access for an entire country? What's that old saying:
There's an appropriate "I, for one, welcome...overlords" and "what could possibly go wrong" comment here, but I'm having a daymare about my house chasing me down the street yelling "wash me damit". I see a Futurama episode here.
Which existed *long* before Linux was a twinkle in Linus' eye - as did many of the tools used to create Linux (like GCC, and other GNU utilities).
Not to troll, but if Linux wasn't around, we wouldn't build it from scratch, we'd simply use something else - like BSD, which was also here before Linux.
...among the studies submitted to the FDA about the effectiveness of antidepressants, almost all of those with positive results were published, whereas very few of those with negative results saw print...
Negative results don't sell meds.
Big pharma is about selling; treating and curing are just a bonus.
about a dozen movies and has had literally hundreds of writers can possibly keep everything consistent
The problem I have (with any series) is when the writers get lazy. Many times I thought this of TNG when almost every problem could be solved by more power, creating some new exotic particle beam and Data remarking "it is possible, in theory". Phoning it in gets old fast.
I thought the original series was more character-oriented in its drama, but then there were only 80 episodes compared to the 178 of TNG - and 176 (DN9), 172 (VOY). Hell Enterprise only had 98, but was getting tired.
I'm sure this says something about either the writers of different generations, or the generations themselves -- or me [ I seem to like fewer and fewer kids on my lawn these days:-) ]
DiCaprio is definitely a good actor, but I don't really care for him -- and I can't exactly define why. It's not so bad that I won't see a movie with him in it, but I won't see one simply because he's in it.
Slashdot Mirror
For example, a quick Google search reveals many hits where people have complained that the Bush administration hasn't been enforcing various laws (I'm sure examples can be found for Clinton, etc...).
That's not technically true. The Presidential Oath is this:
The Constitution says nothing about the President enforcing any laws. See Article 2. Constitutional topics discuss the President's duty to "ensures all laws are carried out", but this is not mentioned in the Constitution.
As a current practical matter, see Signing Statement.
In addition, the President can pardon anyone for any reason, so he can prevent someone from being prosecuted for an infraction - making a law technically unenforced.
The President can also direct funding (or not) to impact the implementation of a law, like No Child Left Behind which has never been fully funded by the Bush Administration, eventhough they championed the bill:
While that's true, the power of the President can be exercised in other effective ways. He could end the war(s) tomorrow with just a signature (for example). He has the power to NOT enforce laws enacted by Congress. He can control some actions of the Federal government by decree (ban off-shore drilling).
I agree that not all of the candidate's promises (any candidate) are achievable without suport of the Congress, but some goals can be accomplished in other ways.
I was finally getting my config.sys and autoexec.bat files optimized. I suppose I could try putting Vista on my 33 MHz 486 (don't worry, it's a DX) ...
Hook your Iridium phone (and/or INMARSAT link if possible) up to a Linux box running Asterisk or TelAlert and use it as a login platform and/or use DTMF (or voice commands).
... and relies on the cunning use of a rabbit, tree, and hole to tie shoelaces.
I'm going outside and talk to the Earth about: "no glove, no love".
Here, learn something...
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Umm... Whenever you want them off?
Least known, but most used, Bond gadget: penis
A great new vacation spot for Zombies! The buffet features...
Um, that should be "especially for DOS / Windows users". Unix was here first dumb asses
Furthermore, using the character, that just about every other programming language uses for the escape character, as an operator (or separator) is just plain stupid -- I'm also talking to you Microsoft, but that horse has definitely left the barn...
Turn this feature off. Click on the downarrow to the left of the search box, select "Manage Search Engines" and de-select "Show search suggestions".
You can also disable this (annoying) feature for Google page searches from their Preferences page. This sets "SG=0" in the Google PREF cookie -- which I've set in my proxy server so it's effectively disabled for all my browsers.
There's an appropriate "I, for one, welcome...overlords" and "what could possibly go wrong" comment here, but I'm having a daymare about my house chasing me down the street yelling "wash me damit". I see a Futurama episode here.
Which existed *long* before Linux was a twinkle in Linus' eye - as did many of the tools used to create Linux (like GCC, and other GNU utilities).
Not to troll, but if Linux wasn't around, we wouldn't build it from scratch, we'd simply use something else - like BSD, which was also here before Linux.
...that's not got much spam in it.
Negative results don't sell meds.
Big pharma is about selling; treating and curing are just a bonus.
I guess it's the Post Office :-)
P.S. The UV (light) page has a nice false-color shot of the solar corona in UV.
Theoretically, that should work.
The problem I have (with any series) is when the writers get lazy. Many times I thought this of TNG when almost every problem could be solved by more power, creating some new exotic particle beam and Data remarking "it is possible, in theory". Phoning it in gets old fast.
I thought the original series was more character-oriented in its drama, but then there were only 80 episodes compared to the 178 of TNG - and 176 (DN9), 172 (VOY). Hell Enterprise only had 98, but was getting tired.
I'm sure this says something about either the writers of different generations, or the generations themselves -- or me [ I seem to like fewer and fewer kids on my lawn these days :-) ]
DiCaprio is definitely a good actor, but I don't really care for him -- and I can't exactly define why. It's not so bad that I won't see a movie with him in it, but I won't see one simply because he's in it.