Like I said in another thread, this is exactly why we must do all we can to put a clamp on the government's power while we still have a Republican in office. To prevent Hillary from destroying the country, I would suggest:
1. Complete annihilation of the electoral collage. A presidential election based solely on popular vote. This should bar Hillary from being elected. If not...
2. An amendment to the U.S. constitution barring any vetos on any federal bill passed by the legislature on or after January 2008, expiring in February 2012 (thus giving Congress plenty of time to extend it should Hillary be re-elected)
3. Also effective January 2008 through February 2012, the office of the President shall be stripped of its title as commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces. This power shall go to the legislature.
Of course, I'm getting ahead of myself. We really should wait until 2007 or 2008 and have a look at the likelihood of Hillary getting elected.
It was to insure that mentalities like you are never able to obtain the reins of absolute power in America, that our Founders set up the government precisely the way they did.
The Constitution stands in the way of all tyrannical extremists. It stands in the way of what you would enforce on others just as it stands in the way of the Marxist DemocRATS, and you both hate that fact.
You would be a threat to our God-given freedoms if you were ever able to obtain absolute power.
Ahhhh .... the wisdom of America's *inspired* Framers. That wisdom has been proven over and over and over again since our Founding.
Marci Hamilton, ... a nationally recognized expert on constitutional and copyright law ... [in] her forthcoming book, Copyright and the Constitution, examines the historical and philosophical underpinnings of copyright law and asserts that the American "copyright regime" is grounded in Calvinism, resulting in a philosophy that favors the product over the producer.
Calvinism? Hamilton's interest in the intersection of Calvinist theology and political philosophy emerged early in her career when she began reading the work of leading constitutional law scholars. She was puzzled by their "theme of a system of self-rule." "They talked about it as if it were in existence," she said. "My gut reaction was that direct democracy and self-rule are a myth that doesn't really exist."
What Hamilton found was that a "deep and abiding distrust of human motives that permeates Calvinist theology also permeates the Constitution."
Her investigation of that issue has led to another forthcoming book, tentatively titled The Reformed Constitution: What the Framers Meant by Representation.
That our country's form of government is a republic instead of a pure democracy is no accident, according to Hamilton. The constitutional framers "expressly rejected direct democracy. Instead, the Constitution constructs a representative system of government that places all ruling power in the hands of elected officials."
And the people? Their power is limited to the voting booth and communication with their elected representatives, she said. "The Constitution is not built on faith in the people, but rather on distrust of all social entities, including the people."
..Two of the most important framers, James Wilson and James Madison, were steeped in Presbyterian precepts.
It is Calvinism, Hamilton argued, that "more than any other Protestant theology, brings together the seeming paradox that man's will is corrupt by nature but also capable of doing good." In other words, Calvinism holds that "we can hope for the best but expect the worst from each other and from the social institutions humans devise."
"Neither Calvin nor the framers stop at distrust, however," Hamilton said. "They also embrace an extraordinary theology of hope. The framers, like Calvin, were reformers."
Emory Report November 29, 1999 Volume 52, No. 13 -Elaine Justice