Post edited 2:26 am – October 27, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 3:38 am – October 27, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 3:41 am – October 27, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 3:43 am – October 27, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 4:00 am – October 27, 2009 by saintstephen

noelfitz said:

I have just returned from a Newman Society of Ireland’s meeting at which we discussed conscience. It seems the main point about conscience is that it should be obeyed.

I am tired now so I hope to reply to you soon.

I think we are agreement that neither of us would vote for an anti-Catholic politician. In Ireland most people are Catholic, even though they are often anti-Church.

Noel, Religion when considering politics must weigh all the political agenda’s presented from these candidates. Of course we have many sources which guide us to a realization of the stated agenda’s although there are often “hidden” agenda’s which are evident only to those who are able to read other than verbally or through oration. The candidates orate much of their campaign and behind the scenes plot smears through advertising which reveal much about anyone’s character.

When oration is blinded by character assassination the results become far more clearly revealing and the true colors of the personae becomes evident in reality.

Personally, I have had to make many choices in loyalty and friendship and have found that the best person to have at my side is one who cares for my life, not one who cares for his own. This is not always an easy choice to make as all that are human are subject to temptations that some can bear and others cannot.

I have always searched out those who even though tempted were able to find their resolve to honesty and truth. This selection cannot rely on orations or promises, it can only be done through deep discernment of the Spirit and prayer.

It is unhealthy for one man to deride the discernment of another for the Spirit speaks to one and ignores another so we all must listen very carefully to one another to come to the right choices not only in politics but also in morals.

It is for this reason that I have found a safe haven in you as I have seen your temptations and your recoveries from temptation, not that I say you are a saint, although I would not be reluctant to choose you to guard my back in a dogfight.

This is the same way we must all choose a President or any other candidate. Would you ask this man to guard your back in a dogfight? If the answer is yes then vote for him. It is your backside he is guarding. Often the choice we make can mean the difference between life and death.

I view the world from the eyes of battle worn soldier and a battle worn Catholic, both are equally as dangerous and death can come quickly to those who do not guard themselves well. I know you also are a battle worn Catholic. Choose wisely.

When I look at America, I not only see the unborn at peril, I see us all in peril especially with a President who is ready to provoke nuclear attacks that would kill not only the unborn but every man, woman and child in this country. I have no choice but to vote as it is a Catholic duty and I have no choice but to vote for a man who is not going to get us all killed with war-like attitude and worse, wanting also to kill half the population of the middle east with retaliation from 9/11. Nuclear attack is becoming a very real possibility which would make the abortion issue seem like a minor devastation.

Not to say abortion is not a serious threat, rather to say that abortion that would not be diminished under either candidate is the only consideration between the two, that the question of who is promoting war, death and destruction is also a devastating question. American has some serious dilemma to solve to right this nation and keep us safe in many ways.

Given the abortive nature of Americans, it would be certain stupidity to think that either candidate can slow that scourge down and stop it. Only moral Americans can truly stop abortion.

Post edited 7:28 am – October 29, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 7:44 am – October 29, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 7:46 am – October 29, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 8:17 am – October 29, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 8:25 am – October 29, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 8:41 am – October 29, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 8:48 am – October 29, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 8:56 am – October 29, 2009 by saintstephen

Michael said: Even if it were, the one-watt answer proposed would not light one inch along such a path.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael, “The faults that we accuse others of is most often our own” [Saint Francis]

Pope Benedict XVI received President Obama warmly and encouraged him in the Truth. The rest is up to Obama. The same holds true for each of us. The Pope has received each of us warmly, the rest is up to us.

As Christ said, “Love one another as I have loved you”. So what license do you hold in your wallet to despise another? Loving a President is no different than loving your own spouse or child.

I did not vote in the Presidential election as I was hospitalized at the time and had I been available to vote, all candidates on the ballot each held convictions which are intrinsically evil, so there was no vote that did not go against good conscience in any event.

The task we face now is correcting the conscience of our legitimate authorities no matter who they are in the best way we know how according to Catechism and we are not alone in this work as the Magistrate of the Church daily communicates with the Presidency as well as Legislature.

Your anger solves nothing, so try to expel the hatred in your heart for your own health of mind, body and spirit. A gentle spirit will accomplish correction. As you say the individual spirit of a man is worth nothing, then what does this say of your own? Do you not shout it into your own ears?

Saint Francis, in discerning if he should pray or preach, deferred the question to his brothers and sisters in Christ. They decided he should preach and Saint Francis obediently preached thereafter.

And how did Bernadette of Lourdes see and speak with the Blessed Mother, the Immaculate Conception if not by her “individual” Spirit of God?

For every man and woman has been given a conscience according to the Will of God.

The Holy See Catechism of the Catholic Church

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION ONE
MAN’S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

CHAPTER TWO
THE HUMAN COMMUNION

ARTICLE 2
PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL LIFE

I. AUTHORITY

1897 “Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all.”15

By “authority” one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.

1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”17

1900 The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will.

Pope St. Clement of Rome provides the Church’s most ancient prayer for political authorities:18 “Grant to them, Lord, health, peace, concord, and stability, so that they may exercise without offense the sovereignty that you have given them. Master, heavenly King of the ages, you give glory, honor, and power over the things of earth to the sons of men. Direct, Lord, their counsel, following what is pleasing and acceptable in your sight, so that by exercising with devotion and in peace and gentleness the power that you have given to them, they may find favor with you.”19

1901 If authority belongs to the order established by God, “the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens.”20

The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed.

1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:21

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22

1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, “authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.”23

1904 “It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the ‘rule of law,’ in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men.”24

Post edited 4:29 am – October 30, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 4:36 am – October 30, 2009 by saintstephen

Michael said:

I don’t despise the president; I think him unfit for office – his tenure to date has been one long amateur-hour.

Michael, The only possible reason for your belief that Obama is unfit is that you believe in the permanence of obstinacy. Obviously Obama is not obstinate in fact the opposite, he is probably the most skilled diplomat America has ever seen. It is quite likely his face will be chiseled into Mount Rushmore.

Only a man whose mind is stuck in a gutter of false beliefs can remain obstinate. As an armchair critic your leadership style appears quite harsh and bitter. Perhaps you might gain a certain insight into diplomacy were you to attempt to coordinate a nation of radically opposing views into a cohesive plan for prosperity and solidarity.

You still have not offered me your credentials, even though I have politely asked repeatedly.

Also, may I ask, as a self-proclaimed leader in love, out-doer in kindness and servant of all, what is your appeal to the children of God?

Post edited 1:44 am – November 1, 2009 by saintstephen

Michael said:I thought our intent was to elect a leader, not a diplomat or manager able to “coordinate a nation of radically opposing views.”

Michael, Obviously you possess a limited view of the office of the Presidency of the United States so I will post it for you [I am concerned that if I provide you a link you may go off into some tangent]to read. He of course is required to Diplomacy and Management of the Cabinet and Legislature as well as other offices subsequent to that:

President of the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
“POTUS” redirects here. For political talk radio, see P.O.T.U.S. (Sirius XM).
For other uses, see President of the United States (disambiguation). For the list, see List of Presidents of the United States.
This article is semi-protected.
President of the
United States of America
Seal Of The President Of The Unites States Of America.svg
Official seal
Incumbent
Barack Obama
since January 20, 2009
Style The Honorable
(Within the U.S.)
His Excellency
(Outside the U.S.)
Residence White House
Term length Four years, renewable once
Inaugural holder George Washington
April 30, 1789
Formation U.S. Constitution
March 4, 1789
Website whitehouse.gov/president

The President of the United States is the head of state and head of government of the United States and is the highest political official in the United States by influence and recognition. The President leads the executive branch of the federal government and is one of only two nationally elected federal officers (the other being the Vice President of the United States).[1]

Among other powers and responsibilities, Article II of the U.S. Constitution charges the President to “faithfully execute” federal law, makes the President commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces, allows the President to nominate executive and judicial officers with the advice and consent of the Senate, and allows the President to grant pardons and reprieves.

The President is indirectly elected by the people through the Electoral College to a four-year term. Since 1951, presidents have been limited to two terms by the Twenty-second Amendment. Forty-three individuals have been elected or succeeded to the office, serving a total of fifty-six four-year terms.[2] On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama became the forty-fourth, and current, president.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Origin
* 2 Powers and duties
o 2.1 Article I legislative role
o 2.2 Article II executive powers
+ 2.2.1 War and foreign affairs powers
+ 2.2.2 Administrative powers
+ 2.2.3 Juridical powers
+ 2.2.4 Legislative facilitator
* 3 Selection process
o 3.1 Eligibility
o 3.2 Campaigns and nomination
o 3.3 Election and oath
o 3.4 Tenure and term limits
o 3.5 Vacancy or disability
* 4 Compensation
* 5 Post-presidency
o 5.1 Presidential libraries
* 6 See also
* 7 References
* 8 Further reading
* 9 External links
o 9.1 Official
o 9.2 Presidential histories
o 9.3 Miscellaneous

Origin
United States

This article is part of the series:
Politics and government of
the United States
Federal government[show]

* Constitution
* Taxation

Legislature[show]

* Congress
o House
+ Speaker
+ Party leaders
+ Congressional districts
o Senate
+ President pro tempore
+ Party leaders

Presidency[show]

* President
* Vice President
* Cabinet
* Federal agencies

Judiciary[show]

* Federal courts
o Supreme Court
o Courts of Appeals
o District Courts

Elections[show]

* Presidential elections
* Midterm elections

Political parties[show]

* Democratic
* Republican
* Third parties

Subdivisions[show]

* State government
o Governors
o Legislatures (List)
o State courts
* Local government

Other countries · Atlas
US Government Portal
view • talk • edit
The Flag of the President of the United States

In 1783, the Treaty of Paris left the United States independent and at peace, but with an unsettled governmental structure. The Second Continental Congress had drawn up the Articles of Confederation in 1777, describing a permanent confederation, but granting to the Congress—the only federal institution—little power to finance itself or to ensure that its resolutions were enforced. In part, this reflected the anti-monarchy view of the Revolutionary period and the new American system was explicitly designed to prevent the rise of an American tyrant to replace the British King.

However, during the economic depression due to the collapse of the continental dollar following the American Revolution, the viability of the American government was threatened by political unrest in several states, efforts by debtors to use popular government to erase their debts, and the apparent inability of the Continental Congress to redeem the public obligations incurred during the war. The Congress also appeared unable to become a forum for productive cooperation among the States encouraging commerce and economic development. In response a Constitutional Convention was convened, ostensibly to reform the Articles of Confederation, but that subsequently began to draft a new system of government that would include greater executive power while retaining the checks and balances thought to be essential restraints on any imperial tendency in the office of the President.

Individuals who presided over the Continental Congress during the Revolutionary period and under the Articles of Confederation had the title “President of the United States in Congress Assembled,” often shortened to “President of the United States”. The office had little distinct executive power. With the 1788 ratification of the Constitution, a separate executive branch was created, headed by the President of the United States.

A president’s executive authority under the Constitution, tempered by the checks and balances of the judicial and legislative branches of the federal government, was designed to solve several political problems faced by the young nation and to anticipate future challenges, while still preventing the rise of an autocrat over a nation wary of royal authority.
Powers and duties
Article I legislative role

The first power conferred upon the President by the U.S. Constitution is the legislative power of the presidential veto. The Presentment Clause requires any bill passed by Congress to be presented to the President before it can become law. Once the legislation has been presented, the President has three options:

1. Sign the legislation; the bill then becomes law.
2. Veto the legislation and return it to Congress with his objections; the bill does not become law, unless each House of Congress votes to override the veto by a two-thirds vote.
3. Take no action. In this instance, the President neither signs nor vetoes the legislation. After 10 days, not counting Sundays, two possible outcomes emerge:
* If Congress is still convened, the bill becomes law.
* If Congress has adjourned, thus preventing the return of the legislation, the bill does not become law. This latter outcome is known as the pocket veto.

In 1996, Congress attempted to alter the President’s veto power with the Line Item Veto Act. The legislation empowered the President to sign any spending bill into law while simultaneously striking certain spending items within the bill, particularly any new spending, any amount of discretionary spending, or any new limited tax benefit. Once a president had stricken the item, Congress could pass that particular item again. If the President then vetoed the new legislation, Congress could override the veto by its ordinary means, a two-thirds vote in both houses. In Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled such an alteration of the veto power to be unconstitutional.
Article II executive powers
War and foreign affairs powers
Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States who successfully preserved the Union during the American Civil War.

Perhaps the most important of all presidential powers is command of the United States armed forces as commander-in-chief. While the power to declare war is constitutionally vested in Congress, the President commands and directs the military and is responsible for planning military strategy. The framers of the Constitution took care to limit the President’s powers regarding the military; Alexander Hamilton explains this in Federalist No. 69:

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. … It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces … while that [the power] of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all [of] which … would appertain to the legislature.[3]

Congress, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, must authorize any troop deployments more than 60 days in length. Additionally, Congress provides a check to presidential military power through its control over military spending and regulation.

Along with the armed forces, foreign policy is also directed by the President. Through the Department of State and the Department of Defense, the president is responsible for the protection of Americans abroad and of foreign nationals in the United States. The president decides whether to recognize new nations and new governments, and negotiates treaties with other nations, which become binding on the United States when approved by two-thirds of the Senate. The president may also negotiate “executive agreements” with foreign powers that are not subject to Senate confirmation.
Administrative powers

The President is the chief executive of the United States, putting him at the head of the executive branch of the government, whose responsibility is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” To carry out this duty, he is given control of the four million employees of the federal executive branch.

Various executive branch appointments are made by presidents. Up to 6,000 appointments may be made by an incoming president before he takes office and 8,000 more may be made while in office. Ambassadors, members of the Cabinet, and other federal officers, are all appointed by a president with the “advice and consent” of a majority of the Senate. Appointments made while the Senate is in recess are temporary and expire at the end of the next session of the Senate.

The power of a president to fire executive officials has long been a contentious point of debate. Generally, a president may remove purely executive officials at his discretion.[4] However, Congress can curtail and constrain a president’s authority to fire commissioners of independent regulatory agencies and certain inferior executive officers by statute.[5]
Juridical powers

The President also has the power to nominate federal judges, including members of the United States courts of appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States. However, these nominations do require Senate confirmation and this can provide a major stumbling block for presidents who wish to shape their federal judiciary in a particular ideological stance. The President must appoint judges for the United States district courts, but he will often defer to Senatorial courtesy in making these choices. He may also grant pardons and reprieves, as is often done just before the end of a presidential term.

Executive privilege gives a president the ability to withhold information from the public, Congress, and the courts in matters of national security. George Washington first claimed privilege when Congress requested to see Chief Justice John Jay’s notes from an unpopular treaty negotiation with Great Britain. While not enshrined in the Constitution, or any other law, Washington’s action created the precedent for the privilege. When Richard Nixon tried to use executive privilege as a reason for not turning over subpoenaed evidence to Congress during the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), that executive privilege did not apply in cases where a President was attempting to avoid criminal prosecution. When President Bill Clinton attempted to use executive privilege regarding the Lewinsky scandal, the Supreme Court ruled in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), that the privilege also could not be used in civil suits. These cases established the legal precedent that executive privilege is valid, the exact extent of the privilege has yet to be clearly defined.
Legislative facilitator
President George W. Bush delivering the 2007 State of the Union Address, with Vice President Dick Cheney and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi behind him.

While the President cannot directly introduce legislation, he can play an important role in shaping it, especially if a president’s political party has a majority in one or both houses of the Congress. While members of the executive branch are prohibited from simultaneously holding seats in the Congress, they often write legislation and allow a Senator or Representative to introduce it for them. The President can further influence the legislative branch through the constitutionally mandated annual report to Congress, which may be either written or oral, but in modern times is the State of the Union address, which often outlines a president’s legislative proposals for the coming year.

Pursuant to Article II, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, the President may convene either or both houses of the Congress. Conversely, if both houses fail to agree on a date of adjournment, the President may appoint a date for the Congress to adjourn.
Selection process

Saintstephen:

You say:

Obviously you possess a limited view of the office of the Presidency of the United States so I will post it for you [I am concerned that if I provide you a link you may go off into some tangent]to read.

Not at all, yours is simply more expansive than warranted. Particular to the post you made, neither the word "manager" nor "diplomat" is evident. "Lead" and "execute" were both present. Since it is not I, but you, that go off onto tangents from which the members of the forum must bring you back, I don't see why you couldn't simply have posted a link.

I don't believe that you understand the powers of the Presidency. You could have saved everyone a lot of wasted time if you'd read this Wiki entry first – and decided not to post it, since it is…tangential.

In Christ,
Michael

And yet your statement does nothing to blunt my point…only prove it.

In Christ,
Michael

Post edited 4:08 pm – November 21, 2009 by saintstephen

Michael said:

And yet your statement does nothing to blunt my point…only prove it.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael, The only point you make is the period you put at the end of your sentences. What I am saying is that in a comparative study of you, Obama and any other candidate for Presidency, I believe Obama will achieve a more favorable outcome for our nation than any other contender, not because of his own merit, rather because of certain events with are in the process of changing the course of our nation away from war and bank usery and abortion. There is current initial signs of these changes already developing slowly toward an ultimate withdrawal which was not achievable with anyone other than Obama due to his effect on the national debates on the welfare of the USA.

While you are still fuming about the results of the election, I am envisioning what will become of America after all the changes are passed into law and implemented. This has nothing to do with what Obama stands for, rather it has everything to do with what America is sick and tired of and wants a new direction and will get there regardless of how we are led and by whom.

Noel:

Here in Ireland there is one party; the Labo(u)r party, which is essentially anti-Catholic. I will not support it. However the problem is there may be a coalition between it and another party which is not so anti-Catholic. Does a vote for this second party bring us closer to anti-Catholics in government?

This is a fair question and I'll admit, first of all, to a limited knowledge of how the Parlimentary system in Ireland works. I also have no understanding of what is meant by Labour being anti-Catholic. So I'm going to ask for your view on the subject. I can read about the parties, but I want your take on their anti-Catholicism.

By the way – I'm a political cynic. I believe that few if any any politicians or political parties have the best interests of the country at heart. My belief is that the only way we advance the US is by constantly reminding these people that their jobs are held in our hands. I've also expressed concern to you that ostensible Catholics may be anti-Catholic in their attempts to "make the Church in their own image" or reshape Catholic doctrine into something wholly unrecognizable, like this example here, for political expediency. We must pray hard for Mr. Kennedy and those espousing "soft anti-Catholicism," which is, to my mind, more insidious than any.

In Christ,
Michael

Noel:

However life is less exciting when we all agree.

It is. And attorneys have no work, to boot.

In Christ,
Michael