Congress decreasing in Power

I read an editorial last week that discussed the decreasing powers of Congress. Since the topic of withdrawl of troops has become popular, the question of whether Democrats are trying to revive Congress’ power is becoming evident. The democratic majority lacks the political power to compel President Bush to bring troops home, but has power to cut finances for the war. Unless the antiwar forces in the Senate can gain sixty votes, according to last Friday was twelve votes short, the Bush presidency will drag on the war.
The Democrats main argument is the fact that the executive branch is becoming stronger and the powers of Congress are decreasing. Congress hasn’t “ declared a war since 1941 and hasn’t gone to mat with the president over any war since Vietnam”. After World War II president have ignored the War Powers Act of 1973 which in plain terms spells out Congress and their influences. Before Americans favored this style of government, especially during the Atomic Age when consulting the congress over nuclear weapons was inconvenient. Most preferred to have a president in charge of national security.
This article brought the controversy of America’s transition of Congressional Powers after September 11th and the War in Iraq. In the atomic era, having a strong executive branch was necessary, but not it seems limiting and not a fair representation of the rest of the government. I agree, that Congress made a correct maneuver to put their opinion head first about the war in Iraq. Without congress, the president has no need to negotiate or compromise his decisions. Congress brings both opinions and views to government not just the president representing one. Is congress really becoming the background of our government? Are their opinions or the system of checks and balances effective on congress in this situation?

Does the canidate's view on Religion, change our views?

There was an article, published in the LA Times by Neil Ferguson called "The Risk of President Giuliani"about his religious views and how they conflict with his political views. The article brought awarness of his religious views, according to this quote," "I pray like a lawyer. I try to make a deal: 'Get me out of this jam and I'll start going back to church.' "referring that he was Catholic when he needed to be. To me personally ,religion shouldn't influence a person's view of a canidate. But what if his personal life, his religious views, and political ideas don't coincide with each other? The article was interesting, because if brought to atttention that most Americans take into consideration, the religious background of a canidate. Within the public Giuliani is percieved as the savior of New York after 9/11 and picked the city from its tragedy, but his messy personal life and shaky religious views, should that be taken into consideration? When I was researching some background information of Giuliani, Yahoo News had put a link to Fred Thompson's religious background. Is religion becoming a new aspect that can break or make canidates in country that has a government that seperates church and state?

We the States or We the People?

Last class, my G block AP Government class discussed how valid our vote really is during the presidential elections. Votes from the American citizens are filtered into representatives that necessarily don't always take the majority vote to represent the state. We can be represented through many branches of government, but when it comes down to the main presidential election our votes are altered and become more of a general consensus of a representative than of the people.
I believe the population should represent itself in the presidential elections.By letting a representative of the state take the votes as suggestions rather than actual votes, the people are not clearly represented. This is the reason, for such a large population not participating in the voting polls. How can a president run his or her country, if he or she only knows half the country's opinion? I disagree with the declining power our vote really has, by being filtered through a state representative rather than the people itself. We the people is how the constitution describes about our nation not we the states.
- Jeneeka