Sunday, February 01, 2015

Checks and balances, an important constitutional principle. Would you confirm? Please go to the link and comment on the blog post. Have a conversation with our friends from California. By the way, the focus is the advise and consent power of the United States Senate. Perfect!


Logan Kieweg said...

I would absolutely agree that checks and balances is an important constitutional principle. It prevents one branch of government from gaining too much control and creating what we escaped from in the past (tyranny). Talking about the Attorney General position brings us to another topic. If I were a US Senator on the Judiciary Committee I would not vote to confirm Loretta Lynch as Attorney General. The article stated that she was in close relations with the president. She supports Obama's decisions on immigration. This is a very controversial issue and for me, being a conservative I cannot support her for the Attorney General position even though we hold the same views on the death penalty (for) and marijuana (against).

Kiera O'Keefe said...

I agree 100% that checks and balances is an important constitutional principle because it allows the three branches to limit the powers of the other branches, so that one branch does not become too powerful. Also, I believe that confirming Loretta Lynch would potentially be bad idea due to the fact that is she has close relations to the president. I believe that it would not go over well for many conservatives because she is most likely going to support the opinions and decisions of Barack Obama's.