Emsworth/Q Campaign Q&A

[Ebowed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I do.

Don't ignore the rest of the post Don.

Emmy is certainly legalistic with the Constitution.

If somone thinks that the Constitution is wrong or inadequate in some area, he ought to lead a campaign to amend it. He shouldn't just ignore it, or amend it under the guise of "interpretation," merely because it is more convenient to do so.

And I'm sure you would say that if one wanted to eliminate the sodomy law in Texas, one should lead a campaign for the legislature to do that.

Fat chance.  We'd never have progress on anything if we just waited for legislatures to support it.

What is that?  You support judicial activism?  Legislating from the bench?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Emmy is certainly legalistic with the Constitution.

If somone thinks that the Constitution is wrong or inadequate in some area, he ought to lead a campaign to amend it. He shouldn't just ignore it, or amend it under the guise of "interpretation," merely because it is more convenient to do so.

And I'm sure you would say that if one wanted to eliminate the sodomy law in Texas, one should lead a campaign for the legislature to do that.

Fat chance.  We'd never have progress on anything if we just waited for legislatures to support it.

What is that?  You support judicial activism?  Legislating from the bench?

I wish it were not necessary.  But in that extreme of a case, of course I do.  Anyone with a heart would.

[Ebowed]

I'll be available to answer any questions you might have.

Do you think that the President should be able to propose legislation?

[Emsworth]

Do you think that the President should be able to propose legislation?

If I were elected President, then I think it would definitely be more convenient for me personally to be able to propose legislation directly. However, the power is more of a convenience than a necessity. Whenever I (as Vice President) have suggested legislation, or even an amendment to a specific bill, there has always been a willing Senator to introduce it on my behalf. I would trust the Senate to have the courtesy to consider all legislation suggested by the executive, even if the formal power to introduce it does not exist.

I am also of the opinion that it might actually be better for debate if the President has to present the legislation to a Senator, and get him to introduce the bill on his behalf, rather than being able to just introduce it directly. This would lead the President to engage in active dialogue with the Senate--to the President being more involved in Senate deliberations. I would agree with our Game Moderator's recent editorial on this subject.

[Jake]

Emsworth - Hypothetical here. If there was a credible terrorist threat (95%+ chance of something happening, lights out intel) and you knew what people were going to carry out the plot, but didn't have legal basis to take them into custody, would you go against the Constitution or would you stick to Constitutional principles and wait.

If no, is there any situation where you'd go against our present Constitution or one of its founding principles?

[Emsworth]

Emsworth - Hypothetical here. If there was a credible terrorist threat (95%+ chance of something happening, lights out intel) and you knew what people were going to carry out the plot, but didn't have legal basis to take them into custody, would you go against the Constitution or would you stick to Constitutional principles and wait.

Yes, I would take the supposed criminal into custody in this case. I would then have them charged with the crime of conspiracy to commit this terrorist act.

I don't want to go into unnecessary legal details, but as long as you "know" (or even just have reasonable suspicion) that an actual attack is going to take place, it is perfectly legal to detain the suspect. It is only arresting people on vague and undefined "possibilities" that is illegal.

You might ask, "What would I do if the Constitution specifically said that I could not arrest this person, even if I had specific knowledge in this case?" Well, I would say that this is equivalent to asking, "What would I do if the Constitution specifically said that someone has the right to murder, and I have no power to stop it?" I consider the hypothetical to be so unreasonable, that there is hardly a point in considering it.

[The Duke]

What will be your first act as President?

[Q]

I know Emsworth's the main attraction here, but if anyone has a question for me as well, I would be happy to answer it.

[Emsworth]

What will be your first act as President?

In terms of legislation, my first action will be to put together a Budget. I would propose appropriate spending cuts in several areas. Furthermore, I would suggest a reform of the tax structure, including the elimination of several deductions (which are more like loopholes) which I do not believe are of significant benefit, or which have been overabused.