"In-person and Electronic Judicial Oversight of the President" ?
535319
Do you not think that this would be abused as with the circumstances today with a total repuglican donination. All three branch of the govenment controled by one party is almost a dictatorship as they knew in places like russia and with the communist party.
529063
Googling might work...also, if memory serves, some of the indiana judicial records can be viewed online.  Depends on what county and I'm not sure if they go back that far.  You can always check.
697684
The power to confirm appointments of US Supreme Court Judges by the President.  And my reading of the constitution (Articles I, II & III) and old law classes indicate that the the US Supreme court has no check on this power....as it would allow the court, in effect, to select their own members.\n\nSo much for 100% of the checks and balances theory.  If someone else can cite differently I would appreciate the information.
766750
The powers of the Executive and Judicial have increased over time while the legislative has given up some of it's power.\n\nThe president is head of the national bureacracy and all federal agencies.  Through these agencies he can exercise a lot of power.  For example he determines who runs the FBI and what their priorities should be.  Also another example is the USDA and FDA that determines levels of pesticides that can be used and the general safety of food and medicine.  The president uses the power of Executive Order to do many things including going to war even though that should be a congressional decision.  Through the years presidents have written more and more executive orders breaking the records of previous presidents.  Look up executive order on wikipedia.\n\nThe judicial branch gained a great deal of power when they established that under the constitution they have the right to judicial review.  The judicial branch can create new law by interpreting how a different set of laws come together to create a new law.  For example, the right to privacy is not on the constitution or any federal law.  Privacy was determined by judicial review  to exist based loosely on the 4th and 5th amendments and some previous case law.\n\nChecks and balances works only if all the branches do their job in good faith.  If they are all part of the same political party and just do everything their party leaders tell them to it doesn't work anymore.  This is was the case the past six years that the president's party dominated both houses of congress and the judiciary (very anti-democratic).\n\nChecks and balances is supposed to work because powers are distributed to the different branches.  Judiciary can review a law and deem it unconstitutional and throw it out of the books.  The legislative has the power to change the constitution and holds the money and distributes it to everyone.  The executive runs the country, the bureacracy, and heads the military and can propose law, but can't make it and can't override congress.\n\nCongress is by far the most important and powerful branch because it can make law, change the constitution, and override any other branch of the government as long as it has a 2/3 majority in both houses.\n\nHope this helps.
1006917
If you're talking about the Federal Executive agencies: Congress and the Courts.\n\nCounterparts exists at the state levels.
367408
Clause 2 of the 25th amendment:\n\n"Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."\n\nThis is the closest mention of anything in the Constitution.  I would assume that if he hasn't been inaugurated yet, the President-elect would have more leniency in picking his next VP with no vote by Congress.
318112
Most company emails and IM traffic is monitored.\n\nI always tell employee that "Before writing an email (or an IM) think about how it will look in front of a Judge one day".\n\nIf you would have trouble explaining it in a courtroom - dont do it.
983891
The problem with the Patriot Act is that while it does provide a clause allowing judicial oversight, Title IV Section 412 includes provisions for judicial review in detentions, and Title II deals with warrant requirements for electronic surveillance, it does not make this oversight mandatory.\n\nThis means that these provisions are allowed to go unenforced. You see, the Executive Branch is in charge of this enforcement. So what we are seeing now and basically have a wide-open window to is when the laws get in the way of what Bush wants to accomplish, he just chooses not to enforce them.\n\nAlso, the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments are limitations on government action, and apply to anyone under US authority or control. Nowhere does it mention 'citizen'.\n\nAs far as warrantless wiretapping, 50 U.S.C. §1801 et al. Warrantless wiretapping is illegal under FISA if any US citizen or resident alien is a party to the conversation. Also 18 U.S.C. § 2511: Compliance with FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance... may be conducted". The Patriot Act runs head to head into legalities here.
1176385
OK, separation of powers is different from the checks and balances.\n\nThe separation of powers makes it clear that only the courts can interpret the constitution and whether it allows for or a law or executive order or not.  It makes it clear that only the president can issue executive orders (ie going to war etc.) and finally that only the legislature shall pass laws. ( I know the last two seem to cross over with the presidential veto and the fact that some laws are proposed by the white house... but it the separation is there.)\n\nThe checks and balances is that no one branch has supreme power and that each can and will be "checked" by the others.  The courts can overturn a law or executive order.  The president can veto a law and appoints the bench. And the legislature can overturn a veto and can amend the constitution to change the issue before the bench.\n\nI don't think either superseded either, they are both intertwined.  I do not think though that anyone should be monitoring the branches (except for the public).  If judges were to watch the pres, then the pres would have the right to watch judges and congress and congress would have the right to watch the judges etc.)\nWhat we need to do is hold our representative officials responsible for their actions and make sure that the best candidates are put forth on ballots.
930852
Article two of the US Constitution establishes the power of the executive branch (mainly the President).\n\nIs that short enough?
931674
A court order must be obtained to legally surveil someone in this country. \n \nThe FISA Court was created to allow some leeway for our government to 'wiretap' in emergency situations as determined by the court but it is time-sensitive and a court order must still be obtained.\n\nBush Co. has stated that they aren't listening to US citizens' phone calls but with several huge telecoms like ATT, Sprint, MCI, and Verizon giving the federal govt our phone records and conversations its hard to believe that they haven't.\n\nWhile other Presidents have used this intelligence gathering procedure, Bush is the only one to decide that he did NOT need a court order.  \n\nThat is illegal.
25441
"Is there a "No Confidence" mechanism for US presidents?"\n\nAs a practical matter, no.  There are two constitutional clauses for removing the president - Article II, Section 4, which reads:\n"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."\n\nThe only attempt to use this mechanism that was pursued to its conclusion was with President Andrew Johnson, who was narrowly acquitted.\n\nThe other clause that offers any type of mechanism for removing the President is the 25th Amendment, which reads as follows:\n\n"Section 1.\nIn case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.\n\nSection 2.\nWhenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.\n\nSection 3.\nWhenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.\n\nSection 4.\nWhenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.\n\nThereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office."\n\nGiven that the Vice President and the cabinet are typically selected by the President, and with the exception of the VP serve at the pleasure of the President, this mechanism would require the individuals holding those offices to believe 1) that their oath of office to their country exceeded their loyalty to the President, and 2) that their commitment to the rule of law in this country exceeded their loyalty to the president.
604163
Absolutely not.  First of all, that would be far too much power for the judiciary to have.  No one branch is to have peremptory oversight over the other.  Second of all, judges might easily see things differently.  Some judges think that not Mirandizing a suspect is constitutional while others don't.  You might easily run into a problem where the justices overseeing the President disagree and then you have gridlock - like we need more of those in our government.  Also, just because those overseers say it's constitutional or not doesn't mean the SCOTUS will agree, so they're a moot entity.  Finally, the President has a chief legal counsel who advises him whether or not something is constitutional - don't you remember Alberto Gonzalez claiming that torture was constitutional?  You say that the judges would report the Prez if he executes an unconstitutional action, but who's to say they're right?  It must be left to the SCOTUS.\n\nMy  biggest point is saved for here though:  you cannot politicize the judiciary.
893857
Fishy, yes.  Also inevitable.  Oversight and accountability are clearly not tolerated by this administration.  The guy should have known better than to actually do his job!
1186500
On all issues of law the final arbiter in the United States is the Supreme Court.  That body in the USA's tricameral system of government has frequently overruled the executive and/or legislative branches of government as to interpretations of existing law.  This in no way should lead one to make such statements as "the President is ignoring the constitution."  It merely demonstrates that a reading  of existing law has been more narrowly defined by the court as interpreted vis-a-vis the constitution and that the system of checks and balances work.
538351
hmm...legislative executive and judicial
30792
George Bush's latest nominee for Supreme Court justice. \nFind out more about his record and his confirmation hearings: \nhttp://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/search?p=Samuel+Alito&y=Search+the+Web&ei=UTF-8&fr=ytff1-&fl=0&x=wrt