The Limits of Presidential Power

Article II of the Constitution defining (and limiting) the presidential powers

from Jon Roland's Constitution site

Section. 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President [Modified by Amendment XII].

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected [Modified by Amendment XXV].

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Thanks to Jon Roland and his excellent, well documented site on our Constitution and related documents.

You should visit him at http://www.constitution.org/

It appears that County Sheriffs have jurisdiction over agents from the Executive Branch.

Amendment X states that powers not given to the President are reserved to states or the people, if not denied.

This excerpt distributed by Forest Glen Durland

Web site: http://www.uhuh.com Email: forest@uhuh.com

Constitutional Limitations of Presidential Power

Following the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, the Founding Fathers of the United States of America met to create a constitution which was to serve as the fledgling nation’s backbone. Though previously unified under the Articles of Confederation, the thirteen articles failed to effectively facilitate cooperation between the individual states; the creation of a new governing document was essential if the newly-independent United States was to succeed as a sovereign country. Though the revolution had been fought to free the colonies from the misrule of a king and the tyranny of a centralized monarchy, the drafters of the Constitution recognized that successful unification of the thirteen states would require that some of their sovereignty be relinquished to a centralized governing body with sufficient power to influence state actions. However, the organization of the national state apparatus and the extent of its powers would have to be re-envisioned in order to prevent the US government from mirroring the body which it was to replace. It was decided that the national government would be split into three separate branches: one legislative, one judicial, and one executive. The US Constitution put forth a system of checks and balances intended to ensure the rights of individual states and to set the limitations of the powers that would be granted to the three branches of the federal government. This essay will focus on those powers granted to the executive by the Constitution, the rational behind their formation, and the theories of presidential power that attempt to explain the significant expansion of presidential powers that has taken place since the documents creation.

Section one of Article II of the US Constitution sets presidential and vice-presidential term limits at four years and states the manner through which they are to be elected. It also requires a fixed presidential salary which cannot be changed during a presidential term (Library of Congress). As James Wilson argued in the Pennsylvania ratifying debates, an income free from congressional influence would make it so that, “the President of the United States could shield himself, and refuse to carry into effect an act that violates the constitution” (Amar 181). In other words, the President’s decision making process would be free from the influence of potential increases or decreases to their salary imposed by Congress. It was also argued that the creation of a presidential salary would make every male US citizen eligible for election to the presidency; without the provision of a salary, only the wealthy would have the means to assume office (Amar 181). Thus, the stipulation of a presidential salary in the US Constitution also served as an effort to prevent aristocratic control of the nation.

Section seven of Article I stipulates that all bills, once passed by both Houses, be presented to the president for consideration. The President can then sign the bill into law, return the bill to House in which it originated, or allow the bill to pass without their signature (Library of Congress). Though presidents prior to the Civil War tended to exercise their veto-power solely to raise constitutional objections to questionable bills, the Constitution itself does not expressly obligate the President to veto any bill deemed unconstitutional. If an unconstitutional provision was merely a small detail in a large piece of legislation, a President could simply choose to allow the bill to pass without their signature; they might also sign their name to a generally sound and desperately needed bill which contained only a minor constitutional flaw. However, “as an officer oath-bound to champion the constitution, the president would also be free to take up his veto pen in defense of the document, in an effort to appeal directly to the American public and to induce Congress to re-pass the bill without the offending details” (Amar 184).

Section two of Article II establishes the President as the “Commander and Chief” of the army and navy, as well as the militias of the original thirteen states, though only when they are called into service of the United States. They are given the right to ask for the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer of each of executive department, on anything pertaining to that department’s specific duties. The President is also given the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment (Library of Congress). Though section two granted the President with significant powers, it also placed restrictions upon the position so as to ensure that the US executive would not come to mirror the British Monarchy. Unlike the king, who maintained control over all of Britain’s military forces, the president could only exert control over state militias in order to “execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions” (Amar 187). While the British monarch could pardon whoever he wished, the US president could only pardon federal offenses, and was restricted from the ability to use their pardoning power to negate impeachment charges.

Section two goes on to describe several areas in which the president is to share power with Congress. Though the president is granted the ability to make treaties and to nominate members to the executive branch, Supreme Court, and other offices not expressly provided for in the Constitution, agreement and consent of two thirds of the Senate is necessary for any treaty or nomination to become effective. This broke the US Constitution from the British Model of unilateral control under the king by “giving the Senate a portion of traditionally executive authority—- much as Article I gave the president some legislative power via the veto clause” (Amar 190).

Section 3 of Article II obligates the president to inform Congress of the state of the union and to recommend measures which they feel are necessary and expedient; “to convene Congress in emergencies; to receive foreign diplomats; to ‘take care that laws are faithfully executed;’ and to commission all executive and judicial officers” (Amar 195).

The final section of Article II provides the most significant check to presidential power, “The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office, on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” (Library of Congress). While British law lacked any mechanisms to oust a bad king, American-style impeachment made the president, as well as his cabinet members, responsible for any personal misconduct while serving as the nation’s leaders. Though entrusted with great powers, the president “would nonetheless be checked by the House and Senate, as the American people looked on, poised to render ultimate political judgment on all concerned” (Amar 204).

Since the creation and ratification of the United States Constitution, the scope of presidential powers has changed dramatically. Not surprisingly, considering the brevity of Article II of the US Constitution. Though rather precise limits are set on legislative and judicial power, no such limits govern the executive. It is within this vague constitutional description that “lay the seeds of a far more powerful position, one that has grown through elaboration of its explicit enumerated powers as well as the interpretation of its implied and inherent powers” (Pika Maltese 3). The Constitution’s ambiguity concerning the limitations of presidential action has led to several contrasting theories of presidential power: the constitutional theory, they stewardship theory, and the prerogative theory.

Proponents of the constitutional theory of presidential power argue that presidential power is strictly limited. They believe the powers of the executive to consist only of those specifically enumerated in the constitution or granted through an act of Congress. According to William Howard Taft, “there is no undefined residuum of power that he can exercise because it seems to him to be in the public interest…[presidential power] must be justified and vindicated by affirmative constitutional …provision” (Pika Maltese 13). The actions of US presidents up to the Civil War convey a shared desire to uphold such a literal interpretation of presidential power as stipulated by the Constitution.

Teddy Roosevelt serves as a fine example of someone who subscribed to the stewardship theory. He maintained the belief that a president of the US could do anything that was not expressly forbidden in the Constitution or by laws passed by Congress working within its constitutional authority. As Roosevelt stated in his autobiography, “I did and caused to be done many things not previously done by the President…I did not usurp power, but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power” (Pika Maltese 14). As these words suggest, the intent of a presidential steward is to leave the office in a better condition than when they assumed power.

It is the prerogative theory however, which extends the broadest range of powers to the president. In his essay “The Second Treatise of Government,” John Locke defines the concept of prerogative power as the power “to act according to discretion for the public good, without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it.” (Pika Maltese 14). The prerogative theory increases presidential powers to include the ability to carry out actions which are explicitly forbidden, should they be deemed to be in the national interest. Such power was exercised by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, “he appealed to military necessity, asserting that the Constitution’s Commander-in-Chief Clause…and its Take-Care Clause…combined to create a ‘war power’ for the president that was virtually unlimited;” and taken even further a century later when Richard Nixon claimed “[W]hen the President does it, that means that it is not illegal” (Pika Maltese 15).

The ambiguity of Article II of the US Constitution made possible such reinterpretations of presidential power; reinterpretations which have lead to a substantially expanded modern presidency. As the responsibilities of the president have increased significantly since the birth of the nation, some reinterpretation of the Constitutional limitations placed on the office’s power has been necessary. However, like Nixon, various presidents have taken their “reinterpretation” beyond what might be considered legitimate. It is these individuals which force one to question whether it was wise to leave the parameters of the presidential role so open to interpretation. Though the Constitution was created with the goal of uniting the nation while preventing the national government from coming to resemble that of the British Empire, the continuous expansion of the presidency and presidential powers, especially of late, pushes the United States ever closer to becoming like the despotic empire its forefathers fought so valiantly to be freed from.

References

The Library of Congress (1787). The United States Constitution. April 21st, 2008.

< http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/bdsdcc:@field(DOCID+@lit(bdsdccc0802))>

Amar, Akhil Reed. America’s Constitution: A Biography. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks 2005.

Pika, Joseph A. Maltese, John Anthony. The Politics of the Presidency. Washington D.C.: CQ Press 2006.Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• BANKRUPTED STATES = CON-CON & NEWSTATE CONSTITUTION

• Insurrection in the Empire State (The Demonization of Capitalism, Part II)

• Chief Justice Marshall court decision brief

What are 3 limitations to presidential power?

1)The judicial branch has power in oversight, and to overrule the president.
2)The president is bound to uphold and defend the constitution.
3) Presidential powers are limited by statute and constitutional ammendment (no dictators for life)

The Limits of Presidential Power

by William Rusher

Whenever a new president is inaugurated, there is always a tremendous amount of speculation over what he (or she) is going to "do." And there's no denying that the new chief executive does have a great deal of discretionary power. But it swiftly becomes apparent that there are strict limits on that power.

In the first place, there are the limits that the new president imposes on himself. He may have pledged to do all sorts of things "on Day One" in the Oval Office, but a lot of them end up being postponed or severely modified, and some, for one reason or another, never get done at all. This is often all to the good: They were promised on the basis of information that turns out to have been inaccurate or incomplete, and on further consideration they may seem downright inadvisable.

Far larger are the restrictions imposed on the president by the Constitution, and by the statutes under which he is compelled to act. The Constitution is famously designed to limit the powers of the president (and, for that matter, of the Congress as well). A president cannot even appoint an ambassador to Nepal, let alone a Cabinet member or a justice of the Supreme Court, without the consent of two-thirds of the Senate. All sorts of presidential actions require the consent of the Senate, and a good many require the approval of both Houses of Congress.

Finally, there are the limitations imposed on presidential power by the political process itself. Even if a president possesses the indisputable power to take a particular step, it may be simply too unpopular with the public at large for him to take it. Franklin D. Roosevelt was, without much question, the most popular president of the 20th century. But when the Supreme Court blocked some of his efforts, and he tried to change its mind by proposing to enlarge it with justices sympathetic to his proposals, the public outcry forced Congress (which had previously been almost slavishly obedient to Roosevelt) to reject the "reform." Even if the consent of Congress had not been required, Roosevelt would have had to abandon his effort.

So we ought not to be surprised if President Obama fails to implement some of the pledges he made in the heat of the campaign. There are plenty of ways he can do this without seeming to betray his promises. Probably the easiest is to insist that he wants to keep a particular promise, but quietly let the Democratic leaders in Congress know that it won't break his heart if they manage to prevent him from having his way.

Meanwhile, I owe it to my readers to acknowledge that I was simply wrong recently, when I ventured that President-elect Obama would not name Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state. My estimate was that to do so would just give her a superb platform from which to pursue her own ambitions for the presidency in 2012 or 2016, while creating the potential for all sorts of public disagreements between the two during the Obama administration.

Obama's decision makes it clear that he's not all that upset by the prospect of Hillary running to succeed him (even if his own choice might be Vice President Biden), and that he doesn't anticipate -- or calculates that he can win -- any public disagreements between the two of them in the meantime.

These are legitimate political calculations, though either or both of them may prove to have been unwise.

Sumber:

www.uhuh.com/constitution/article2.htm

www.answers.com

www.townhall.com

www.thepoliticsofempire.wordpress.com

Batasan Kekuasaan Kepresidenan

Pasal II

Konstitusi mendefinisikan (dan membatasi) kekuasaan presiden

dari Jon Roland situs Konstitusi

Bagian. 1. Kekuasaan eksekutif harus diberikan kepada Presiden Amerika Serikat. Ia akan menahan Jangka Kantor selama empat tahun, dan, bersama-sama dengan Vice President, dipilih untuk jangka yang sama, dipilih, sebagai berikut:

Setiap Negara akan menunjuk, Cara sedemikian sebagai Badan Legislatif daripadanya dapat langsung, suatu Jumlah pemilih, yang sama dengan seluruh Jumlah Senator dan Perwakilan Negara yang berhak di Kongres: tapi tidak ada Senator atau Perwakilan, atau memegang Person Kantor Kepercayaan atau Laba di bawah Amerika Serikat, akan diangkatsebagaiPemilih.

Para pemilih akan bertemu di masing-masing Serikat, dan suara oleh Suara untuk dua Orang, di antaranya satu setidaknya tidak akan suatu Penduduk Negara yang sama dengan diri mereka sendiri. Dan mereka harus membuat Daftar semua Orang memilih, dan dari Number Suara untuk masing-masing; yang daftar mereka akan tanda dan sertifikasi, dan mengirimkan ke Seat dimeteraikan dari Pemerintah Amerika Serikat, diarahkan kepada Presiden Senat. Presiden Senat akan, dalam Kehadiran Senat dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, membuka semua Sertifikat, dan Votes kemudian akan dihitung. Pihak yang mempunyai Jumlah terbesar Votes akan menjadi Presiden, jika hal itu menjadi Mayoritas Jumlah seluruh Jumlah pemilih yang ditunjuk, dan jika ada lebih dari satu yang memiliki Mayoritas, dan Jumlah yang sama Votes, maka Rumah Perwakilan Rakyat segera chuse oleh Suara salah seorang dari mereka untuk Presiden; dan jika tidak ada Orang yang memiliki mayoritas, kemudian dari lima tertinggi di Daftarlah kata Rumah akan di seperti chuse Cara Presiden. Tetapi dalam chusing Presiden, Votes harus diambil oleh Serikat, Perwakilan dari masing-masing Negara memiliki satu Suara; korum untuk Tujuan ini terdiri atas seorang Anggota atau Anggota dari dua pertiga dari Serikat, dan sebuah Mayoritas dari semua Negara akan diperlukan untuk sebuah Pilihan. Dalam setiap kasus, setelah Pemilihan Presiden, Orang memiliki Votes Jumlah terbesar dari pemilih harus menjadi Vice President. Tapi kalau tetap harus ada dua atau lebih yang sama Votes, Senat akan chuse dari mereka oleh Suara yang Vice President [Modified by Amandemen XII].

Kongres dapat menentukan chusing Timne dari para pemilih, dan Hari di mana mereka akan memberikan Suara; yang hari akan sama di seluruh Amerika Serikat.

Tidak Person kecuali lahir alami Citizen, atau warga negara Amerika Serikat, pada saat yang Disahkannya Undang-Undang Dasar ini, akan memenuhi syarat untuk Kantor Presiden; tidak akan ada Person memenuhi syarat untuk itu Kantor yang tidak akan mencapai Era tiga puluh lima tahun, dan telah empat belas tahun menjadi residen di Amerika Serikat.

Dalam Kasus Penghapusan Presiden dari Kantor, atau dari Kematian, Pengunduran diri, atau Ketidakmampuan untuk melaksanakan Wewenang dan Tugas dari kata Office, yang Sama akan berpindah pada Vice President, dan Kongres dapat dengan Undang-Undang memberikan Perkara tentang Penghapusan, Kematian, Mengundurkan diri atau Ketidakmampuan, baik dari Presiden dan Vice President, menyatakan apa Petugas kemudian akan bertindak sebagai Presiden, dan Pejabat tersebut harus bertindak sesuai, sampai Disability dihapus, atau Presiden harus dipilih [Modified by Amandemen XXV ].

Presiden akan, pada menyatakan Times, menerima untuk Services, sebuah Kompensasi, yang tidak akan dapat meningkat atau berkurang selama Periode yang ia harus sudah terpilih, dan ia tidak akan menerima di dalam Periode honor lain dari Amerika Serikat, atau salah satu dari mereka.

Sebelum ia masuk di Eksekusi Kantor-nya, ia akan mengambil Sumpah atau Afirmasi berikut: - "Saya bersumpah (atau menyatakan) bahwa saya akan setia menjalankan Kantor Presiden Amerika Serikat, dan kemauan untuk yang terbaik Kemampuan saya, melestarikan, melindungi dan mempertahankan Konstitusi Amerika Serikat. "

Bagian. 2. Presiden harus menjadi Panglima Angkatan Darat dan Angkatan Laut Amerika Serikat, dan dari Milisi dari beberapa Serikat, ketika dipanggil ke layanan sebenarnya dari Amerika Serikat; ia mungkin memerlukan Opini, secara tertulis, dari kepala sekolah Officer di masing-masing Departemen eksekutif, pada setiap subjek yang berkaitan dengan Tugas masing-masing Kantor, dan ia akan memiliki daya untuk memberikan pengampunan untuk Reprieves dan Pelanggaran terhadap Amerika Serikat, kecuali dalam Kasus Pemakzulan.

Ia harus mempunyai Power, oleh dan dengan Nasihat dan Persetujuan Senat, untuk membuat Perjanjian, menyediakan dua pertiga dari sekarang para senator setuju dan ia akan mencalonkan, dan oleh dan dengan Nasihat dan Persetujuan Senat, akan menunjuk Duta, Menteri publik lainnya dan Konsul, Hakim dari Pengadilan tertinggi, dan semua pejabat lain Amerika Serikat, yang Penunjukan tidak ditentukan lain dalam Perjanjian ini, dan yang akan ditetapkan dengan Undang-Undang: tetapi kongres mungkin oleh rompi Hukum Pengangkatan tersebut yang lebih rendah petugas, karena mereka berpikir yang tepat, di presiden sendirian, di Pengadilan Hukum, atau dalam Kepala Departemen.

Presiden harus mempunyai Power untuk mengisi semua Vacancies yang mungkin terjadi selama reses Senat, dengan memberikan komisi yang akan berakhir pada Akhir Sesi berikutnya mereka.

Bagian. 3. Dia akan dari waktu ke waktu memberi kepada Kongres Informasi Negara Uni, dan merekomendasikan kepada mereka Pertimbangan Tindakan seperti ketika dia akan hakim perlu dan bijaksana, ia dapat, pada Occasions luar biasa, bersidang keduanya Rumah, atau salah satu dari mereka, dan dalam Kasus Perselisihan di antara mereka, dengan Respect ke Timne dari penundaan, dia mungkin menangguhkan mereka ke Timne seperti ketika ia akan berpikir yang tepat, ia akan menerima Duta Besar dan Menteri publik lainnya, ia harus mengambil Perawatan bahwa Undang-Undang setia dijalankan, dan akan komisi semua pejabat Amerika Serikat.

Bagian. 4. Presiden, Vice President dan semua pejabat sipil Amerika Serikat, akan dihapus dari Office pada Pemakzulan untuk, dan Keyakinan dari, Pengkhianatan, Suap, atau kejahatan tinggi lain dan pelanggaran hukum ringan.

Terima kasih kepada Jon Roland dan sangat baik, didokumentasikan dengan baik situs Konstitusi dan dokumen terkait.

Anda harus mengunjungi dia di http://www.constitution.org/

Apa 3 keterbatasan kekuasaan presiden?

1) Cabang yudisial memiliki kekuatan dalam pengawasan, dan untuk mengesampingkan presiden.

2) Presiden terikat untuk menegakkan dan mempertahankan konstitusi.

3) Kekuasaan Presiden dibatasi oleh undang-undang dan amandemen konstitusi (tidak ada diktator seumur hidup)

Batas-Batas Kekuasaan Presiden

Setiap kali presiden baru dilantik, selalu ada sejumlah besar spekulasi atas apa yang dia (atau dia) akan "melakukan." Dan tidak ada penyangkalan bahwa kepala baru eksekutif tidak memiliki banyak discretionary kekuasaan. Tapi cepat menjadi jelas bahwa ada batasan-batasan ketat pada kekuasaan.

Di tempat pertama, ada batas-batas yang memaksakan presiden baru pada dirinya sendiri. Dia mungkin telah berjanji untuk melakukan segala macam hal "pada Hari Satu" di Oval Office, tapi banyak dari mereka akhirnya menjadi ditunda atau sangat dimodifikasi, dan beberapa orang, untuk satu alasan atau lainnya, tidak pernah dilakukan sama sekali. Hal ini sering semua baik: Mereka dijanjikan berdasarkan informasi yang ternyata sudah tidak akurat atau tidak lengkap, dan pada pertimbangan lebih lanjut, mereka mungkin tampak benar-benar tidak bijaksana.

Jauh lebih besar adalah batasan-batasan pada presiden oleh konstitusi, dan oleh undang-undang di mana ia dipaksa untuk bertindak. Konstitusi terkenal dirancang untuk membatasi kekuasaan presiden (dan, dalam hal ini, Kongres juga). Seorang presiden bahkan tidak dapat menunjuk seorang duta besar ke Nepal, apalagi anggota Kabinet atau seorang hakim dari Mahkamah Agung, tanpa persetujuan dari dua-pertiga dari Senat. Segala macam tindakan presiden memerlukan persetujuan Senat, dan banyak memerlukan persetujuan dari kedua Rumah Kongres.

Akhirnya, ada pembatasan pada kekuasaan presiden oleh proses politik itu sendiri. Bahkan jika seorang presiden memiliki kekuasaan tak terbantahkan untuk mengambil langkah tertentu, itu mungkin hanya terlalu populer dengan masyarakat luas baginya untuk menerimanya. Franklin D. Roosevelt tidak, tanpa banyak pertanyaan, presiden yang paling populer dari abad ke-20. Tetapi ketika Mahkamah Agung diblokir beberapa usahanya, dan ia berusaha untuk mengubah pikiran dengan mengusulkan untuk memperbesar dengan hakim simpatik kepada proposal, protes publik memaksa Kongres (yang sebelumnya hampir mentah-mentah taat kepada Roosevelt) untuk menolak " reformasi. " Bahkan jika persetujuan Kongres tidak diperlukan, Roosevelt akan terpaksa meninggalkan usahanya.

Ini adalah perhitungan politik yang sah, meskipun salah satu atau kedua dari mereka mungkin telah terbukti tidak bijaksana.

Keterbatasan konstitusional kekuasaan Presiden

Setelah penandatanganan Perjanjian Paris pada tahun 1783, para Founding Fathers dari Amerika Serikat bertemu untuk membuat sebuah konstitusi yang melayani sebagai tulang punggung bangsa yang masih muda. Meskipun sebelumnya bersatu di bawah Artikel Konfederasi, tiga belas artikel gagal untuk secara efektif memfasilitasi kerjasama antara masing-masing negara; pembentukan pemerintahan baru dokumen ini penting jika baru merdeka Amerika Serikat adalah untuk sukses sebagai negara berdaulat. Meskipun revolusi telah berjuang untuk membebaskan jajahan dari salah atur dan seorang raja tirani monarki yang terpusat, para perancang Konstitusi mengakui bahwa sukses penyatuan dari tiga belas negara akan memerlukan bahwa sebagian dari mereka akan menyerahkan kedaulatan kepada pemerintahan yang terpusat tubuh dengan kekuatan yang cukup untuk mempengaruhi tindakan negara. Namun, organisasi nasional aparatur negara dan luasnya kekuasaan harus kembali membayangkan untuk mencegah pemerintah AS dari tubuh yang mencerminkan itu untuk mengganti. Diputuskan bahwa pemerintah nasional akan dibagi menjadi tiga cabang terpisah: satu legislatif, satu peradilan, dan seorang eksekutif. Konstitusi Amerika Serikat mengajukan suatu sistem checks and balances dimaksudkan untuk menjamin hak-hak masing-masing negara dan untuk menetapkan batasan kekuasaan yang akan diberikan kepada tiga cabang pemerintah federal. Esai ini akan memfokuskan pada kekuatan yang diberikan kepada eksekutif oleh konstitusi, yang rasional di belakang formasi, dan teori-teori kekuasaan presiden yang berusaha menjelaskan perluasan signifikan kekuasaan presiden yang telah terjadi sejak penciptaan dokumen.

Bagian salah satu Pasal II dari Konstitusi AS menetapkan presiden dan wakil presiden pada batas masa jabatan empat tahun dan negara cara melalui mana mereka harus dipilih. Ini juga membutuhkan gaji presiden tetap yang tidak dapat diubah selama masa jabatan presiden (Library of Congress). Sebagai James Wilson berpendapat di Pennsylvania mengesahkan perdebatan, penghasilan bebas dari pengaruh Kongres akan membuatnya sehingga, "Presiden Amerika Serikat dapat melindungi diri, dan menolak untuk membawa berlakunya suatu tindakan yang melanggar konstitusi" (Amar 181) . Dengan kata lain, Presiden proses pengambilan keputusan akan bebas dari pengaruh potensial bertambah atau berkurang untuk gaji mereka dikenakan oleh Kongres. Saat itu juga berpendapat bahwa penciptaan gaji presiden akan membuat setiap laki-laki warga negara Amerika Serikat memenuhi syarat untuk pemilihan presiden; tanpa pemberian gaji, hanya orang kaya akan memiliki sarana untuk mengasumsikan kantor (Amar 181). Dengan demikian, penetapan gaji presiden dalam Konstitusi AS juga menjabat sebagai upaya untuk mencegah kontrol aristokratis bangsa.

Bagian tujuh Pasal saya menetapkan bahwa semua tagihan, setelah melewati oleh kedua Rumah, akan diajukan kepada Presiden untuk dipertimbangkan. Presiden dapat menandatangani undang-undang menjadi undang-undang, kembalikan tagihan ke Rumah di mana ia berasal, atau biarkan tagihan berlalu tanpa tanda tangan mereka (Library of Congress). Meskipun presiden sebelum Perang Saudara cenderung untuk melaksanakan hak veto-kekuatan mereka semata-mata untuk meningkatkan konstitusional keberatan terhadap tagihan dipertanyakan, konstitusi itu sendiri tidak secara tegas mewajibkan Presiden untuk memveto setiap RUU yang dianggap inkonstitusional. Jika suatu ketentuan konstitusi hanyalah detil kecil dalam sepotong besar undang-undang, seorang Presiden bisa saja memilih untuk memungkinkan tagihan berlalu tanpa tanda tangan mereka, mereka mungkin juga tanda nama mereka ke sebuah suara secara umum dan sangat dibutuhkan tagihan yang hanya berisi minor cacat konstitusional. Namun, "sebagai seorang perwira sumpah-terikat untuk juara konstitusi, presiden juga akan bebas mengambil pena hak veto-nya dalam membela dokumen, dalam upaya untuk naik banding langsung kepada publik Amerika dan untuk mendorong Kongres untuk kembali-pass tagihan tanpa menyinggung rincian "(Amar 184).

Bagian dua dari Pasal II menetapkan Presiden sebagai "Panglima dan Chief" pasukan dan angkatan laut, serta milisi dari tiga belas negara yang asli, meskipun hanya bila mereka dipanggil ke layanan dari Amerika Serikat. Mereka diberi hak untuk meminta pendapat, secara tertulis, dari pejabat utama dari masing-masing departemen eksekutif, pada apa pun yang berkaitan dengan departemen yang tugas khusus. Presiden juga diberikan kuasa untuk memberikan pengampunan untuk reprieves dan pelanggaran terhadap Amerika Serikat, kecuali dalam kasus impeachment (Library of Congress). Meskipun bagian dua diberikan Presiden dengan kekuatan yang signifikan, tetapi juga ditempatkan pada posisi pembatasan sehingga untuk memastikan bahwa eksekutif AS tidak akan datang cermin Monarki Inggris. Tidak seperti raja, yang mempertahankan kontrol atas semua pasukan militer Britania, presiden hanya bisa memaksakan kendali atas milisi negara untuk "melaksanakan Undang-Undang Uni, menekan hara, dan menolak Invasi" (Amar 187). Sementara raja Inggris pengampunan bisa siapa pun dia berharap, presiden AS hanya bisa memaafkan pelanggaran federal, dan dibatasi dari kemampuan untuk menggunakan kekuasaan untuk mengampuni mereka meniadakan biaya impeachment.

Bagian dua terus untuk menggambarkan beberapa daerah di mana presiden adalah untuk berbagi kekuasaan dengan Kongres. Meskipun presiden diberikan kemampuan untuk membuat perjanjian dan untuk mencalonkan anggota cabang eksekutif, Mahkamah Agung, dan kantor-kantor lainnya tidak secara tegas diatur dalam konstitusi, kesepakatan dan persetujuan dari dua pertiga anggota Senat diperlukan untuk setiap perjanjian atau nominasi untuk menjadi efektif. Hal ini melanggar Konstitusi AS dari Model Inggris sepihak kontrol di bawah raja dengan "Senat memberikan sebagian dari kekuasaan eksekutif secara tradisional - sama seperti Pasal I memberikan presiden beberapa kekuasaan legislatif melalui klausul hak veto" (Amar 190).

Bagian 3 Pasal II mewajibkan presiden untuk memberitahu Kongres mengenai keadaan kesatuan dan untuk merekomendasikan langkah-langkah yang mereka anggap perlu dan bijaksana; "untuk mengadakan Kongres dalam keadaan darurat; untuk menerima diplomat asing, untuk 'berhati-hati bahwa hukum dilaksanakan dengan setia ; 'dan untuk komisi semua pejabat eksekutif dan yudisial "(Amar 195).

Bagian terakhir Pasal II memberikan cek yang paling signifikan untuk kekuasaan presiden, "Presiden, Wakil Presiden, dan semua pejabat sipil Amerika Serikat, akan diberhentikan dari jabatannya, pada impeachment untuk dan keyakinan pengkhianatan, penyuapan, atau lainnya kejahatan dan pelanggaran hukum ringan tinggi "(Library of Congress). Sementara hukum Inggris tidak memiliki mekanisme apapun untuk mengusir raja yang buruk, impeachment gaya Amerika membuat presiden, juga sebagai anggota kabinet, bertanggung jawab atas kesalahan pribadi ketika menjabat sebagai pemimpin bangsa. Meskipun dipercayakan dengan kekuatan besar, presiden "akan tetap diperiksa oleh DPR dan Senat, sebagai rakyat Amerika memandang, siap untuk memberikan penilaian politik tertinggi pada semua yang bersangkutan" (Amar 204).

Sejak penciptaan dan ratifikasi dari Konstitusi Amerika Serikat, ruang lingkup kekuasaan presiden telah berubah secara dramatis. Tidak mengherankan, mengingat singkatnya Pasal II dari Konstitusi Amerika Serikat. Meskipun agak tepat batas ditetapkan pada kekuasaan legislatif dan yudikatif, tidak ada batas seperti mengatur eksekutif. Hal ini dalam konstitusi samar-samar ini deskripsi yang "meletakkan benih dari posisi yang jauh lebih kuat, yang telah berkembang melalui elaborasi dari kekuasaan yang disebutkan eksplisit serta penafsiran yang tersirat dan melekat kekuatan" (Pika maltese 3). Konstitusi's ambiguitas mengenai keterbatasan tindakan presiden telah menyebabkan beberapa teori kontras kekuasaan presiden: teori konstitusional, pelayanan mereka teori, dan teori hak prerogatif.

Pendukung teori konstitusional kekuasaan presiden berpendapat bahwa kekuasaan presiden sangat terbatas. Mereka percaya kekuasaan eksekutif hanya terdiri dari orang-orang secara khusus disebutkan dalam konstitusi atau diberikan melalui suatu tindakan Kongres. Menurut William Howard Taft, "tidak ada terdefinisikan residuum kekuasaan yang ia dapat latihan karena tampaknya dia berada dalam kepentingan publik ... [presiden kekuasaan] harus dapat dibenarkan dan dibuktikan oleh afirmatif konstitusional ... penyediaan" (Pika Maltese 13) . Tindakan presiden Amerika Serikat ke Perang Saudara menyampaikan keinginan bersama untuk menegakkan penafsiran harfiah seperti kekuasaan presiden seperti yang ditetapkan oleh konstitusi.

Teddy Roosevelt berfungsi sebagai contoh yang baik seseorang yang berlangganan ke teori pelayanan. Ia memelihara kepercayaan bahwa seorang presiden AS bisa melakukan apa saja yang tidak tegas dilarang dalam Konstitusi atau oleh undang-undang yang disahkan oleh Kongres bekerja di dalam kewenangan konstitusional. Seperti Roosevelt menyatakan dalam otobiografinya, "saya lakukan dan menyebabkan harus dilakukan banyak hal yang sebelumnya tidak dilakukan oleh Presiden ... aku tidak merebut kekuasaan, tapi aku amat memperluas penggunaan kekuasaan eksekutif" (Pika Maltese 14). Seperti kata-kata ini menunjukkan, maksud dari pelayan presiden adalah untuk meninggalkan kantor dalam kondisi yang lebih baik daripada ketika mereka menganggap kekuasaan.

Ini adalah hak prerogatif . Namun teori, yang memperluas jangkauan kekuasaan luas kepada presiden. Dalam esainya "The Second Treatise of Government," John Locke mendefinisikan konsep kekuasaan prerogatif sebagai kekuatan "untuk bertindak sesuai dengan kebijaksanaan untuk kepentingan umum, tanpa resep dari hukum, dan kadang-kadang bahkan menentangnya." (Pika maltese 14). Teori hak prerogatif presiden meningkatkan kekuatan untuk mencakup kemampuan untuk melakukan tindakan yang secara eksplisit dilarang, seharusnya mereka dianggap dalam kepentingan nasional. Kekuasaan seperti yang dilaksanakan oleh Abraham Lincoln selama Perang Saudara, "ia memohon kepada kebutuhan militer, dan menyatakan bahwa Konstitusi Komandan-in-Chief Klausul ... dan Perawatan Take-Ayat ... dikombinasikan untuk menciptakan sebuah 'kekuatan perang' untuk presiden yang hampir tak terbatas; "dan dibawa lebih jauh satu abad kemudian, ketika Richard Nixon menyatakan" [W] hen Presiden melakukannya, itu berarti bahwa itu tidak ilegal "(Pika Maltese 15).

Ambiguitas Pasal II dari Konstitusi Amerika Serikat dimungkinkan reinterpretations seperti kekuasaan presiden; reinterpretations yang mengarah ke diperluas secara substansial kepresidenan modern. Tanggung jawab sebagai presiden telah meningkat secara signifikan sejak kelahiran bangsa, beberapa reinterpretasi keterbatasan Konstitusi ditempatkan pada kantor kekuasaan telah diperlukan. Namun, seperti Nixon, berbagai presiden telah mengambil mereka "reinterpretasi" melampaui apa yang mungkin dianggap sah. Individu-individu inilah yang memaksa orang mempertanyakan apakah bijaksana untuk meninggalkan parameter dari peran presiden sangat terbuka untuk interpretasi. Meskipun Undang-Undang Dasar ini dibuat dengan tujuan menyatukan bangsa, sementara mencegah pemerintah nasional dari menyerupai yang datang dari Kerajaan Inggris, terus-menerus perluasan kekuasaan presiden dan presiden, terutama akhir-akhir ini, mendorong Amerika Serikat semakin dekat untuk menjadi seperti kerajaan yang despotik para nenek moyang begitu gagah berani berjuang.

Referensi

Library of Congress (1787). Konstitusi Amerika Serikat. 21 April 2008.

Amar, Akhil Reed. Amerika Konstitusi: A Biography. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks 2005.

Pika, Joseph A. Malta, John Anthony. Politik Kepresidenan. D.C. Washington: CQ Press 2006.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

* Bangkrut NEGARA = CON-CON & NEWSTATE KONSTITUSI
* Pemberontakan di Empire State (yang demonisasi Kapitalisme, Bagian II)
* Ketua putusan pengadilan Marshall singkat



Sumber dari:
-www.uhuh.com/contitution/article2.htm
-www.wiki.answers.com/
-www.townhall.com
-www.thepoliticsofempire.wordpress.com/

News from Wyoming (until march 29th 2010)

Wyoming state senator mulls political future

By JEREMY PELZER - Star-Tribune capital bureau | Posted: Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:00 am

CHEYENNE -- Whatever state Sen. Mike Massie’s political future is, it won’t include a fifth term in the Wyoming Senate.

Massie, a tall, bearded 16-year Senate veteran, said Wednesday that he won’t be running for re-election this fall. However, the Laramie Democrat said he’ll decide by the end of the month whether to run for statewide office, such as state superintendent of public instruction or governor.

"Sixteen years (in the Senate) is sufficient," Massie said. "I don't want to be hanging around longer than I should be. And it's time, after 16 years of 60-hour work weeks, to hand the ball off to somebody else."

Already, at least two Democrats are vying to succeed Massie: Laramie Mayor Jodi Guerin and 2008 Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Chris Rothfuss.

Guerin, whose second two-year term as mayor ends this year, said that if elected, she would focus on economic development, workforce training and improving Wyoming's inadequate child-care system, among other issues.

"I think there are some good opportunities to advance causes of the city of Laramie on the state level -- which is something that I'm interested in doing," Guerin said. "And I also think that there are some opportunities to do things that are good for the whole state as well."

Guerin and her husband John own and run the Coal Creek Coffee Company in Laramie.

Two years ago, Rothfuss, a chemical engineer, former diplomat and University of Wyoming international studies instructor, handily lost the U.S. Senate race to incumbent U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., by a 3-to-1 margin.

Since then, Rothfuss said, people from both parties have suggested he run for the state Legislature.

"I think this is a good year for that," Rothfuss said. "It seems like it's a good place to get some legislative experience, but also to really effect some change in some of the objectives that I was looking for when I was running for United States Senate."

One of those objectives, he said, is to help Wyoming benefit more from its energy industry -- from researching coal liquification and carbon sequestration technologies to finding more profitable ways to export energy than simply shipping out coal, oil and gas.

Massie said both Guerin and Rothfuss have spoken to him about their candidacies.

"They're both really qualified individuals," he said. "Either one would do a fine job in the state Senate."

Contact capital bureau reporter Jeremy Pelzer at (307) 632-1244 or jeremy.pelzer@trib.com. Read more about Wyoming politics at http://tribtown.trib.com/wypolitics.

Barrasso apologizes for factual error

By JEREMY PELZER - Star-Tribune capital bureau | Posted: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:00 am

CHEYENNE -- U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., tried to call a Utah congressman on Tuesday to apologize after falsely claiming on national cable news that the lawmaker voted for the federal health care reform bill after his brother was appointed a federal judge.

Speaking with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren on Monday, Barrasso said, "In Utah, a member from Utah that voted on the bill, he was against it and then he was for it. And what a coincidence that his brother just got named to be a federal judge."

U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson's brother Scott was recently nominated by the Obama administration to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

However, Jim Matheson, a Democrat, voted "no" during all three House votes on Democratic health care reform bills this session: the House bill in November, as well as both the Senate bill and the reconciliation bill last Sunday.

Barrasso spokesperson Emily Lawrimore said Tuesday that the senator "misspoke" and placed a call to the congressman to apologize.

As of early Tuesday evening, though, he hadn't yet spoken with the congressman, said Matheson spokesperson Alyson Heyrend.

Asked what Matheson thought about Barrasso's statements, Heyrend said, "Obviously he thinks it's pretty unfortunate that the senator would say something false about his voting record on the news."

As for how Barrasso got his facts wrong, Lawrimore said, "I think there were a lot of different stories last week about the appointment, and that's how he got or had the wrong idea."

Indeed, in recent weeks there have been -- mostly from right-of-center media outlets -- questioning whether Scott Matheson's appointment was intended as a quid pro quo for his brother's support of the Democratic health care bill.

Until Saturday, Matheson had stayed mum on whether he planned to vote for the $938 billion reform package that, among other things, extends insurance coverage to roughly 32 million additional Americans, requires most Americans to purchase health insurance, and obligates larger employers to provide coverage to their workers.

Barrasso, an orthopedic surgeon who's one of two doctors in the U.S. Senate, has been a vocal opponent of the health care reform bill, appearing regularly on cable TV news to attack the massive Democratic health care bill.

"I think this is going to be bad for patients, it's going to be bad for practitioners, for our doctors and our nurses, and it's going to be bad for payers," Barrasso said Tuesday in an interview on MSNBC.

Wyoming Democratic Party spokesperson Brianna Jones said that throughout the health care debate, Barrasso has been "fearmongering and having a very, very loose relationship with the truth."

"I think it was great that he was willing to apologize," Jones said. "But on the other hand, I think it belies a greater need to focus on the facts."

Contact capital bureau reporter Jeremy Pelzer at (307) 632-1244 or jeremy.pelzer@trib.com. Read more about Wyoming politics and government at http://tribtown.trib.com/wypolitics.

Council meets behind closed doors over press

By PETE NICKEAS - Star-Tribune staff writer | Posted: Thursday, March 25, 2010 12:00 am

The Casper City Council held an executive-session discussion about media policy at a work session in the last month, according to sources, who say council members were reminded by Mayor Bill Brauer to not share information about the council's closed-door business.

Three officials present during the meeting were granted anonymity to speak freely about the closed-door talks, which may have violated state law. The sources stopped short of calling Brauer's point a "warning," though one source said that Brauer's main point was that "what is said [in executive session], stays here."

Attorney Bruce Moats with the Wyoming Press Association, who in the past has represented the Casper Star-Tribune in court cases, said the discussion didn't fall under any exemptions outlined by the state's open meetings laws.

Brauer denied advising council members to not speak to the press, though the sources said the back-and-forth focused on increased media scrutiny and how to deal with inquiries regarding the closed-door meetings.

"I frequently remind people when we go into executive session what that means," Brauer said. "If that's illegal ... we won't talk about it in executive session. When we go into executive session, that's all a part of the deal, to remind people what executive session means."

The state's open meetings law allows city councils and other legislative bodies to hold closed door meetings to discuss sensitive issues, but those exemptions are outlined within the law.

"That discussion about what should be disclosed in and of itself does not fit any exemption I could think of," Moats said.

Moats added that if the mayor had an opinion of what should and should not be public, he should have said it in an open meeting.

"There's no harm in the public knowing that is the position of the mayor," Moats said. "They might want to comment to the mayor about that policy."

One of the common exemptions used by the city council to hold closed-door meetings is for "contract negotiations." For the past few weeks, sources said, the city was working on a contract extension for the local firefighters' union.

That contract became public when it was approved at a full city council meeting.

One source said the mayor's reminder was that most items discussed in executive session -- such as the firefighters contract -- eventually become public when they are brought into an open city council meeting, and that is the time to speak about them. Brauer said he was concerned about items that never become public -- such as some disputes over personnel matters.

Another source said that not all council members agreed with the mayor, saying it may be counterproductive to clamp down on media relations when public distrust of government is high.

Reach city reporter Pete Nickeas at pete.nickeas@trib.com or (307) 266-0639. Read more about Casper politics and government at http://tribtown.trib.com/redtape

A governing body of an agency can hold closed-door executive sessions ...

1. With law enforcement officers to discuss threats to the security of public or private property, or to discuss threats to the public's right of access

2. To discuss personnel matters

3. To discuss litigation or potential litigation

4. To discuss national security

5. When a licensing agency is preparing, administering or grading examinations

6. When considering the term, parole or release of an individual from a correctional or penal institution

7. To consider land purchases when media publicity would cause a likely increase in price

8. To consider the acceptance of gifts, donations and bequests which the donor has requested in writing to be kept confidential

9. To consider or receive information considered classified by law

10. To consider accepting or tendering offers of wages, salaries, benefits and terms of employment during negotiations

11. To consider any student-related disciplinary action

Local groups get $23K

By PETE NICKEAS - Star-Tribune staff writer | Posted: Sunday, March 28, 2010 12:00 am

Casper's tanking tax revenue hasn't stopped the city council from agreeing to spend more than $23,000 on discretionary events and programming.

The council's "Community Promotions" program allows local groups to ask for city money and services for their programs. Results from the spring round of applications, which have to be formally approved at a full council meeting, were discussed and approved at Thursday's city council work session.

Some groups ask for cash, others ask for in-kind services or to use city facilities, and some ask for all three. After the groups ask for the money, each council member decides if the application is worthy of consideration. All 10 groups seeking money or services were approved for some aid this time around.

After each member votes on the application's merits, they decide how much cash and how much in facilities and services to provide the groups. The totals from the nine members are averaged, and the results are voted on at a full city council meeting.

The 12-24 Club, which was awarded $250,000 in the fall for upgrades to its new building, will receive $1,100 in cash and about $500 in waived facilities fees for a recovery rally. That event -- with or without the city funding -- is expected to turn a profit, according to the group's application.

Council Vice President Paul Bertoglio and Ward 2 Councilwoman Stefanie Boster were the only council members who voted to provide no cash to any of the five groups seeking city money. Bertoglio also voted "no" on three of the facilities requests and one of the in-kind requests.

"Some of these groups are using our facilities ... with or without our funds, they are going to be cash positive. At some point, some of these groups need to raise fees to do some of this stuff," Bertoglio said. "These are great organizations -- but they have the ability to raise the fees a few bucks and cover the events."

Casper Mayor Bill Brauer voted to approve almost $16,000 of the requests. No other council member wanted to approve more than $10,000 of the requests. Brauer also voted to spend the most money in the fall round of community promotions applications.

"They were doing something good to help promote the community," Brauer said in explaining his vote. "There's always concern with the revenue dropping. That's no reason to shut off the faucet."

When the council approved the fall round of community promotions funding, it gave out $173,000 -- $52,000 in cash, $72,000 for city facilities and $48,000 of in-kind services. The successful groups had sought a total of $355,000. The council awarded just 23 percent of the cash the groups requested and honored nearly all the requests for facilities and in-kind services.

That funding was approved at the beginning of the economic downturn the city is now experiencing. Revenue from the statewide 4-cent sales tax, which pays for community promotions funding and the day-to-day operations of the city, is down about 25 percent.

Reach city reporter Pete Nickeas at pete.nickeas@trib.com or (307) 266-0639. Read more about Casper politics and government at http://tribtown.trib.com/redtape

Breakdown

Money approved

Cash -- $5,752

Facilities -- $5,113

In-kind -- $12,447.74

Money requested

Cash -- $23,374

Facilities -- $5,113

In-kind -- $12,447.74

Ayers to speak at University of Wyoming

By JEREMY PELZER - Star-Tribune staff writer | Posted: Monday, March 29, 2010 3:30 pm

 CHEYENNE -- Bill Ayers, a professor and former domestic terrorist who became a household name during the 2008 presidential election, will visit the University of Wyoming next month to discuss education and social justice issues.

Ayers will deliver a lecture entitled "Trudge toward Freedom: Moral Commitment and Ethical Action" at UW's Education Auditorium on April 5. The following day, he will participate in a teleconference with Wyoming school principals.

His visit comes as part of a biannual lecture series put on by the UW's Social Justice Research Center, a privately endowed center that studies problems of oppression and inequalities among different social groups in society.

No public funds are being used to pay for Ayers' visit, said UW spokeswoman Jessica Lowell.

Even so, Ayers' presence on campus is sure to spark outrage among conservatives. In the late 1960s, Ayers helped found the militant left-wing terrorist group the Weather Underground, which protested the Vietnam War by bombing the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and other government buildings.

Ayers found himself back in the headlines two years ago, when Republican John McCain's presidential campaign tried to highlight Ayers' ties to then-presidential nominee Barack Obama. The two lived in the same neighborhood in Chicago's South Side, once worked on the same charity board, and Ayers hosted a small meet-the-candidate event for Obama in 1995.

Obama, who was a young boy when the Weather Underground bombings took place, denounced Ayers' terrorist past and said that Ayers played no part in his presidential campaign.

These days, Ayers has become a respected academic. As Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois at Chicago, he studies, among other things, teaching about social justice, urban educational reform and children in trouble with the law.

Ayers is a founder of the "small schools" movement, which seeks to replace sprawling, crowded urban schools with small, student-centered facilities, often built around specific focuses such as African-American studies and the United Nations.

Contact capital bureau reporter Jeremy Pelzer at (307) 632-1244 or jeremy.pelzer@trib.com. Read more about Wyoming politics and government at http://tribtown.trib.com/wypolitics.

Sumber dari:

-www.trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article

-www.trib.com/news/local/article

Perbedaan Sistem Politik yang ada di Amerika dengan di Indonesia

Amerika Serikat merupakan negara demokrasi konstitusional dengan sistem three-tier dan institusi kehakiman yang bebas. Terdapat tiga peringkat yaitu nasional, negara bagian dan pemerintahan lokal yang mempunyai badan legislatif serta eksekutif dengan bidang kuasa masing-masing. Negara ini menggunakan sistem persekutuan atau federalisme di mana di negara pusat dan negara bagian berbagi kuasa. Negara pusat berkuasa terhadap beberapa perkara seperti pencetakan mata uang Amerika serta kebijakan pertahanan. Namun, negara-negara bagian berkuasa menentukan hak dan undang-undang masing-masing seperti hak pengguguran bayi dan hukuman maksimal dalam hal undang-undang.

Satu elemen yang kentara di Amerika ialah doktrin pembagian kuasa. Pasal 1 hingga 3 Konstitusi Amerika, telah menggariskan secara terperinci mengenai kuasa-kuasa Negara yang utama yaitu eksekutif, legislatif dan kehakiman. Checks and Balances atau pemeriksaan dan keseimbangan merupakan satu ciri yang utama dalam negara Amerika dan hal ini begitu komprehensif sehingga tidak ada satu cabang negara yang mempunyai kuasa mutlak untuk mengawal cabang yang lain.

Di negara ini semua rakyat yang berusia 18 tahun ke atas berhak memilih. Pemilu untuk pemilihan presiden diadakan setiap empat tahun sekali dan yang terakhir ialah pada bulan November 2004.

Di samping Pemilu untuk pemilihan presiden, ada pula Pemilu paruh waktu, yang diadakan pada pertengahan masa jabatan presiden. Dalam pemilu ini yang dipilih bukanlah presiden melainkan seluruh anggota Dewan Perwakilan dan sepertiga dari semua senator dari tiap negara bagian. Pemilu ini terakhir diadakan pada 7 November 2006.

Perbedaan prinsip negara: Indonesia dan Amerika Serikat

Kamis, 18 Jun '09 08:08

Perbandingan:
1. Tentang Kemerdekaan
Pembukaan UUD 1945:

Bahwa sesungguhnya Kemerdekaan itu ialah hak segala bangsa dan oleh sebab itu, maka penjajahan di atas dunia harus dihapuskan, karena tidak sesuai dengan peri-kemanusiaan dan peri-keadilan.

Atas berkat rahmat Allah Yang Maha Kuasa dan dengan didorongkan oleh keinginan luhur, supaya berkehidupan kebangsaan yang bebas, maka rakyat Indonesia menyatakan dengan ini kemerdekaannya.

Sedang Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Dari 2 kutipan di atas kita melihat bahwa Indonesia mengutamakan kemerdekaan bangsa, kemerdekaan rakyat sedangkan AS kemerdekaan individu.

2. Tentang Tujuan Negara.
Pembukaan UUD 1945:

Kemudian daripada itu untuk membentuk suatu Pemerintahan Negara Indonesia yang melindungi segenap bangsa Indonesia dan seluruh tumpah darah Indonesia dan untuk memajukan kesejahteraan umum, mencerdaskan kehidupan bangsa, dan ikut melaksanakan ketertiban dunia yang berdasarkan kemerdekaan, perdamaian abadi dan keadilan sosial.

Sedang Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Tujuan pemerintah menurut UUD 1945 adalah empat hal: melindungi warganegara, mensejahterakan rakyat, memberi pendidikan dan aktif di dunia Internasional, sedangkan menurut DoI: sangat sederhana, memastikan terpenuhinya pemenuhan hak-hak asasi warganya.

3. Tentang Kontrol Pemerintah.
UUD 1945

yang terbentuk dalam suatu susunan Negara Republik Indonesia yang berkedaulatan rakyat dengan berdasarkan kepada: Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa, Kemanusiaan yang adil dan beradab, Persatuan Indonesia, dan Kerakyatam yang dipimpin oleh hikmat kebijaksanaan dalam Permusyawaratan/Perwakilan, serta dengan mewujudkan suatu Keadilan sosial bagi seluruh rakyat Indonesia.

Declaration of Independence

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Di sini terlihat bahwa AS memberikan porsi yang besar untuk kebebasan individu sehingga memberi ruang bagi individu untuk menggulingkan pemerintahan jika dirasa mengekang kebebasan mereka. Sementara untuk Indonesia, negara punya legitimasi sebagai perwujudan kedaulatan rakyat. Jika bagi AS pemerintah bukan negara sedang Indonesia pemerintah adalah negara.

Apakah pentingnya perbedaan ini?
Simple, Indonesia lebih bersifat sosial daripada AS yang individual, sehingga nilai-nilai AS belum tentu cocok diterapkan di Indonesia.
(politikana.com)

Apa perbedaan Pemilu Di INDONESIA & Di AMERIKA?

Di Amerika :

1. partai hanya 2 yaitu partai demokrat dan partai republik.

2. karena hanya ada 2 partai maka hanya ada 2 calon presiden.

3. calon presiden masing-masing partai terlebih dahulu di seleksi melalui konsesi yang melibatkan kader masing-masing partai.

4. dalan konsesi hanya masyarakat yang mendaftar dalam partai atau terdaftar yang boleh ikut menentukan calon presiden.

5. karena ada 2 partai maka salah satu akan menjadi partai penguasa dan partai yang lain menjadi partai oposisi.

6. pemilu dilakukan 2 kali yaitu pemilu untuk pemilih umum atau masyarakat dan pemilu yang diikuti oleh para senator,kalo di Indonesia kaya jaman dulu ada fraksi utusan daerah yang jumlahnya ada 438 orang senator atau anggota senat semacam DPR-nya Amerika.

Di Indonesia :

1. partai ada banyak (alesanya agar demokratis tapi lebih ke menghambur-hamburkan uang dana kampanye).

2. calon presiden ada banyak(g pada malu,g punya kemampuan asal punya uang dan pendukung lalu siap maju ke pilpres............MEMALUKAN).

3. setiap partai berlomba-lomba mengajukan calon presiden (biar dikira tetep eksis kali).

4. pemilu ada 2 kali yaitu untuk memilih partai dan calon presiden,pemilu yang lalu pilpres ada 2 tahap.

5. g jelas partai yang menang ma partai yang jadi oposisi coz yang di kabinet juga udah punya jatah jumlah yang duduk di kabinet.

6. DPR juga kaya mengelimpok sendiri-sendiri sesuai partai,jadi kalo ada kasus bukan g mungkin semua yng terlibat orang-orangnya juga 1 golongan(inget kasus agus cokro????)

kalo baik yang mana susah juga,yang jelas letak perbedaanya adalah pendidikan politik dan kesadaran berpolitik...............dan sayangnya bangsa kita masih berpendidikan politik rendah.

Apa persamaan dan perbedaan sistem pemerintahan di Indonesia dengan di Amerika serikat?

Beda banget, sedari dulunya semenjak 1776,atau setelah Thomas Jefferson nulis dia punya konsep kemerdekaan, sistim perpolitikan di negeri termaksud terpecah hanya pada sumbu pro atau kontra, issue sentralnya tampaknya melulu mengacu pada sistim Yahudi atau arab, Islam atau Kristen, Hindu / Buddha atau Yiddish, Bethlehem atau tidak sama sekali,

News UPdate.

Sepertinya Mekah /Medina dari kota-kota di Indonesia mungkin masih Oke, tapi bila dilanjutkan ke Bethlehem atau Tel Aviv. Wallahualam, nggak janji.

Mereka punya 50 negara bagian yg dikepalai oleh Governur,

lhaa kalo kita hanya punya 30 propinsi,tapi itu demografi.

Sepertinya memang ada perjanjian yg terkait dengan anak cucu nabi Jaqob a.s akan hal termaksud, coba deh lihat barangkali ada kaitannya dengan hal yg ingin anda ketahui :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_of_the_…

Indonesia dan Amerika serikat sama-sama menggunakan sistem pemerintahan presidensial. Meskipun sama-sama menggunakan sistem presidensial, terdapat variasi yang disesuaikan dengan perkembangan ketatanegaraan. Indonesia yang menganut sistem presidensial tidak akan benar-benar sama dengan pemerintahan Amerika Serikat. Secara umum faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi system pemerintahan suatu negara antara lain karena faktor sejarah, faktor ideology, dll.

"Dewan Perwakilan bersama Senat Amerika Serikat, merupakan bagian lembaga konstitusional pada Kongres Amerika Serikat. Sistem politik Amerika menganut Sistem Bikameral (dua Kamar), yaitu DPR dan Senat. DPR mewakili suatu wilayah yang ditetapkan (distrik). Sistim distrik kalau sistim Pemilu Indonesia saat ini Daeral Pemilihan (Dapil). Sementara Senat (kalau di Indonesia DPD), berasal dari tiap negara bagian masing-masing diwakili 2 orang, kalau jumlah negara bagian USA ada 50 maka jumlah Senatnya 100. DPR Amerika jumlah lebih banyak dari Senat.

Senat setara kedudukannya dengan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat. Tugas Senat beri rekomendasi kepada pemerintah terkait suatu hal, persetujuan pengangkatan pejabat eksekutif/yudikatif tingkat tinggi oleh presiden serta mengesahkan perjanjian. Sementara DPR mengajukan persetujuan RUU Keuangan (termasuk bail-out).

Kedudukan Kongres (di Indonesia MPR), di dalam Konstitusi Amerika Serikat (UUD 1945 mereka) memberikan kekuasaan legislatif dari pemerintah federal (negara bagian), namun tetap terbatas. Kekuasaan Kongres misalnya otoritas mengatur perdagangan luar negeri dan antar negara bagian, memungut pajak, mendirikan pengadilan federal di bawah Mahkamah Agung, mengatur angkatan bersenjata, menyatakan perang termasuk kekuasaan untuk "membuat seluruh hukum yang diperlukan dan layak dijalankan dalam kekuasaan sekarang. Diluar itu diberikan kepada negara bagian dan masyarakat. 

Dalam kaitannya Bail-Out, Pemerintah mengajukan rancangan ke Senat dan dilanjutkan ke DPR. Sepakat berlanjut ke Kongres lalu Ketok Palu. Setuju deh pembenahan ekonomi US$ 700 M."

Demikian semoga bermanfaat.

Dari berbagai sumber
www.id.answers.yahoo.com
uzey.blogspot.com/2009

News from Wyoming (until march 15th '2010)

Local Republican Women Discuss Getting Republicans And Women Elected

By Betsy Love on Tue 02/16/2010 08:07

Republican Women of Sheridan County had their first meeting of 2010 last night at the Sheridan Senior Center. The speaker at the meeting was Wyoming GOP Chairman, Diana Vaughn, who spoke with the group about the importance of getting not just Republicans elected, but more women Republicans as well:

Vaughn mentioned that although women in Wyoming tend to vote in higher numbers than men and are often very politically active, they still only represent a small fraction of the state elected officials.

The meeting of Republican Women, which includes several men, also discussed the looming state gubernatorial race. The speakers at their next meeting on March 11th will be the Republican primary contenders for governor.

You can get more info at www.wfrw.vcn.com

The Sheridan County Republican Caucus and County Convention Held This Weekend

By Betsy Love on Mon 03/15/2010 07:00

GOP Logo

Sheridan County Republicans held a precinct caucus and a county convention this weekend in order to elect a caucus chairman, vote on party resolutions, and elect delegates for the State Convention and adopt the county platform. Cathy Poleman, who is the Chairman of the Sheridan County Republicans, says the resolutions and platforms committees had quite a lot of work cut out for them.

Before these resolutions become public and official, they must go through the state processes and become adopted. The elected delegates who will represent Sheridan County at the state convention, Cathy says, include our four state representatives from Sheridan County

This year, the Wyoming Republican State Convention is in Sheridan and will take place on Thursday, April 29th-May 1st, at the Holiday Inn.

Also coming up is the annual Reagan Day Dinner, which will also be at the Holiday Inn in Sheridan on March 20th. Liz Cheney will be the guest speaker at the Reagan Day Dinner, but she will also be the guest on public pulse this Tuesday.

Speaker Of The House Colin Simpson Was In Sheridan Thursday To Talk Budget Session

By Ron Richter on Fri 03/12/2010 00:05

Wyoming House of Representatives Speaker Colin Simpson

Its been one week since the Wyoming State Legislature wrapped up the 2010 Budget Session in Cheyenne. Speaker of the Wyoming House of Representatives Colin Simpson stopped by the Sheridan Media studios Thursday to discuss some of the issues from this year's session. Sheridan Media's Ron Richter has more.

Most local government's around Wyoming had hopes that the Legislature would tap into the Legislative Reserve Account to allow more funding to be distributed to municipalities around the state. Speaker of the House Colin Simpson comments on why the reserves were left alone.

Currently there is approximately $700 million in the Legislative Reserve Account. The budget will go into effect July 1st of this year, and Simpson says the Legislature will convene some six months later to determine if there are any changes that can be made.

Simpson said that education funding, Medicaid and the retirement system were three major reasons why legislators choose not to use any of the reserve funds this session. Be sure to join us Monday, where we'll hear from Simpson on a bill that he co-sponsored that ultimately died in the Senate.

Democrats pan campaign finance system

By EJ Conzola II - Star-Tribune staff writer | Posted: Sunday, March 14, 2010 12:00 am

Politics should not be a zero sum game, in which one side has to lose if the other is to win, a former and possibly future candidate for elected office told Natrona County Democrats on Saturday.

The nation's elected leadership needs to "focus on problems, instead of the opposition," former U.S. Senate candidate Chris Rothfuss said in his keynote speech to the Natrona County Democratic Convention.

Members of both political parties should approach contentious issues by looking at what will be best for the American people, said Rothfuss, who lost his 2008 senate race to Republican Mike Enzi.

Unfortunately, "the people that we have in Washington, D.C. just aren't good at that," he said.

Although Rothfuss called on both parties to put aside partisanship and work for the good of the people who elected them, he was -- not surprisingly -- especially critical of Republicans, whom he took to task for "looking for ways to shoot down ideas."

Despite the obstructionism of the GOP and the current focus on the struggling effort to reform health care, the administration of President Barack Obama has accomplished a great deal, particularly in the area of foreign policy, Rothfuss said.

"The rest of the world looks on us as an ally again," said Rothfuss, a chemical engineer who worked as a science advisor for the U.S. State Department from 2003 to 2006.

He criticized the current campaign finance system, which he said gives large campaign contributors greater access to elected officials than the average citizen.

Rothfuss also criticized the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to spend freely on political campaigns, but stopped short of criticizing the five justices responsible for the ruling, saying they were following the Constitution as they saw it.

Rothfuss also said he is contemplating a return to politics with a bid for a state Senate seat if state Sen. Mike Massie runs for governor.

Former Wyoming Secretary of State Kathy Karpan also scored the way campaigns are financed during her luncheon speech. Karpan, who has mounted unsuccessful campaigns for governor and U.S. Senate, noted the costs of campaigning have spiraled upwards in recent years.

"There's something wrong with that picture," she said.

Karpan praised the fundraising strategy employed by the Obama campaign, which raised a great deal of money through small contributions from many donors, largely through the Internet. Because the money came from a large number of people, rather than a small circle of large contributors, Obama is less beholden to those wealthy backers, she said.

"Broad-based support meant freedom," she said.

While the speeches by Rothfuss and Karpan were the highlights of the day for many Democrats, most of the convention centered around the drafting of a party platform for the 2010 election and the selection of delegates for the state Democratic convention, which will be held May 14 and 15 in Casper.

Posted in Local on Sunday, March 14, 2010 12:00 am Updated: 6:05 pm.

Measure still needs formal approval at council meeting

City gives initial approval to street extension

By PETE NICKEAS - Star-Tribune staff writer | Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010 12:00 am

Casper City Council members have informally agreed to connect 21st Street to Wyoming Boulevard.

Five of the eight members in attendance at a work session this week voted for the proposal, which calls for the road to be built in three segments between Missouri Street and Wyoming Boulevard.

Three members voted against the plan, reflecting their growing concern about the city's lagging tax revenues.

There are two missing segments between Missouri Street and Wyoming Boulevard: One stretches from Missouri to Kingsbury Drive, and the other is a shorter portion between Walsh Drive and Wyoming Boulevard. Under the construction proposal, the segment between Missouri and Kingsbury would be broken into two shorter sections, the first running from Missouri to Rustic Court and the second completing the link to Kingsbury.

The city is obligated to pay for half of the road construction for about half of the first segment, City Manager Tom Forslund said.

Engineering estimates had pegged the city's cost as high as $450,000, so when the city's cost came in at about $200,000, it was a relief to city council members and city planners. The city didn't budget for the project, as city planners didn't think construction would begin this year. That road segment will be paid for with cost savings from other projects.

Anything past the city's obligation -- finishing the first segment or doing the entire second segment -- is optional. To build 21st Street out to Wyoming Boulevard, the city would have to pay the entire cost of the construction now and hope to recapture that outlay from developers in the future, Public Services Director Gary Clough told the council during Monday's work session.

Those costs add about $600,000 to the total project price, though the city would also be able to "recapture" 75 percent of the construction costs of the road from future developers who might build in the area to be served by the road, according to Clough.

The city has saved money on other projects, and construction costs on the other two segments could also be paid for with those savings, Clough said.

Still, council members were hesitant to commit money not knowing what next year's budget will look like. Ward 2 Councilwoman Stefanie Boster suggested waiting until after the budget is approved in June to consider the project.

Forslund said the developer building the first portion will begin construction when the weather is better, and the city needs to decide now if it wants to do the entire project. Otherwise, the city will have to seek bids and do the construction work separate from the development work.

Debate between council members focused the city's poor finances and the need to alleviate the pressure on 15th Street, which is near its capacity, according to Forslund.

Ward 3 Councilman Maury Daubin voted against the measure, saying the time wasn't right to commit money without knowing more about the city's financial future.

Council Vice President Paul Bertoglio disagreed, citing low construction costs and the need to open up the area.

"I think we should, given the cost savings we have," said Bertoglio, who lives in the ward where the construction is scheduled. "At some point we're still on the lam for this. The cost is probably going to double, and the opportunity [is there] to get this done so much cheaper. We need to keep in mind that we have to start some of this interconnection ... 21st [Street], that's going to become a major arterial at some point."

Reach city reporter Pete Nickeas at pete.nickeas@trib.com or (307) 266-0639. Read more about Casper politics and government at http://tribtown.trib.com/redtape

Posted in Local on Thursday, March 11, 2010 12:00 am Updated: 6:03 pm.

Ten groups seek city money

By PETE NICKEAS - Star-Tribune staff writer | Posted: Tuesday, March 9, 2010 12:00 am

Ten organizations are seeking money and services from the city of Casper during the spring round of "community promotions" funding.

That money is doled out by the Casper City Council to any group the council deems worthy of funding or help from the city. Some groups ask for police officers to patrol crowds. Others seek to have facility fees waived, and others ask for cash. Some ask for all three.

The council first decides if groups are worthy. Any group receiving a majority vote advances to another round of voting, where council members decide how much help they want to give. Groups receive an average of what the nine members think they should get.

Of the 10 organizations seeking funding, Special Olympics Wyoming is the only one that applied for and received money earlier this budget year.

Special Olympics Wyoming was supposed to submit two applications in July for the round of money disbursed in the fall -- one application for a winter 2010 event and one for a fall 2010 event, according to Debbie Huber, one of the group's volunteers.

The Casper City Council awarded the group more than $4,000 in October -- $1,750 for city facilities, $510 in in-kind services, and $1,944 of a $4,000 request for cash. That will be used for the fall 2010 event.

Since the group was late with its Winter 2010 application, the event has already passed, and the group is now seeking a $6,000 reimbursement for money it already spent on ski lift tickets.

Also seeking money is the 12/24 Club, a nonprofit organization that sponsors anonymous meetings for addicts. Though the group didn't receive any community promotions money in the fall, the city council did award it $250,000 in August to help with construction costs for its new building.

The 12/24 Club's request is for $5,000 in cash and $500 for facilities and in-kind services for a Recovery Rally. That event is expected to turn a profit, even without the city funding, according to the group's application.

When the council approved the fall round of community promotions funding, it gave out $173,000 -- $52,000 in cash, $72,000 for city facilities, and $48,000 of in-kind services. The successful groups had sought a total of $355,000. The council awarded just 23 percent of the cash the groups requested and honored nearly all the requests for facilities and in-kind services.

That funding was approved at the beginning of the economic downturn the city is now experiencing. Revenue from the statewide 4-cent sales tax, which pays for community promotions funding and the day-to-day operations of the city, is down nearly 25 percent.

The council members will fill out vote sheets that will be compiled and presented at the March 25 work session. Formal approval of any money could come at a subsequent meeting.

Reach city reporter Pete Nickeas at pete.nickeas@trib.com or (307) 266-0639. Read more about Casper politics and government at http://tribtown.trib.com/redtape

Posted in Local on Tuesday, March 9, 2010 12:00 am Updated: 5:07 pm.

Family supports Freudenthal's decision not to challenge term limits law

Wyoming gov rules out third term

By JOAN BARRON - Star-Tribune capital bureau | Posted: Friday, March 5, 2010 12:00 am

Dave Freudenthal, Wyoming Governor

CHEYENNE -- With his wife Nancy at his side, Gov. Dave Freudenthal formally announced Thursday that he will not be a candidate for re-election this year.

"This decision is not made lightly but has strong support from my family," said the two-term Democratic chief executive.

"I suspect this statement comes as no surprise to most observers of the Wyoming political scene," he added.

If he had decided to run, Freudenthal would have had to challenge the state's term limits law, which observers said was no barrier given that the Wyoming Supreme Court already overturned term limits for legislators.

The governor said his decision began to gel over Christmas when he sat down with his wife and children. The children were uniformly opposed to him running again, he said.

Nancy Freudenthal said it was very much a family decision.

The job is demanding on a governor's personal and family life, she said.

"It was hard for me not to blurt out what I thought," she said.

Nancy Freudenthal's appointment to a federal judgeship is awaiting a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate.

A recent Republican poll gave Freudenthal an extremely high approval rating.

The governor earlier announced he would commission a poll on various issues, a move that briefly fueled speculation he would run again.

Freudenthal said Thursday that the pollster was paid for the survey, but it wasn't done.

"We'll turn the stuff over to the (Democratic) party and let them work with the pollster, what questions they want," he said.

Freudenthal said he does not know what he will do when he leaves office in 10 months.

He declined to talk about any "legacy."

"We don't do that legacy stuff," he said during the news conference. "This legacy stuff is incredibly dangerous."

"I would like to see us actually do a carbon capture/sequestration process. I would like to see the GE process work. I would like to see the NCAR thing get going," he added.

But these projects, he said, are part of a process and will move forward regardless of who is governor.

Lawmakers from both parties were positive about Freudenthal's performance during seven-plus years as chief executive.

Sen. Eli Bebout, R-Riverton, who lost to Freudenthal in a close race for governor in 2002, said he respects the governor's decision and knows it was not an easy one.

The governor, he said, has tried to minimize the impact on the state of the federal government's handling of wolves and sage grouse.

"I think he really tried to represent Wyoming against the intrusiveness of the federal government, and he did that," Bebout said.

"When we had huge energy development, he did the balancing act," said Sen. Kathryn Sessions, D-Cheyenne.

"He tried to preserve those things that we hold most dear in this state -- our water, our air, our mountains, our open space. He was the balancer between all of that and industry and money and all the stuff on the other side," Sessions said.

"He did so much for our kids, for juvenile justice, recognizing that what was happening to young people was not acceptable and using his office to make the improvements that needed to be made," she added.

Rep. Roy Cohee, R-Casper, a former House speaker, said Freudenthal has done a good job.

"In the last eight years we've been fortunate, and I think we have done a fair job investing, saving and spending appropriately," Cohee said.

Rep. Rodney "Pete" Anderson, R-Pine Bluffs, said Freudenthal has been a very popular governor.

"But he's obviously had a free ride with the financial part of the state," Anderson said. "I don't know why he'd want to go back in when it'd be such a problem after that (success)."

House Speaker Colin Simpson, R-Cody, a probable candidate for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, said Freudenthal has been a fine governor.

"And I applaud his love for the state and the way that's been portrayed during his tenure as governor. He'll be remembered as, I think, a well-liked, popular governor who's led Wyoming through some exceptional times," Simpson said.

Freudenthal said he told his staff Thursday morning that his decision to close one door is "kind of bittersweet."

One one hand, he said, "I'm 59, I've got a great life ahead of me, and things look good."

"On the other hand, it's been a grand adventure, and you hate for it to end," Freudenthal said.

Contact capital bureau reporter Joan Barron at 307-632-1244 or joan.barron@trib.com

What they're saying

Here are some comments about Gov. Dave Freudenthal's announcement that he won't seek re-election:

"He tried to preserve those things that we hold most dear in this state -- our water, our air, our mountains, our open space. He was the balancer between all of that and industry and money and all the stuff on the other side."

-- Sen. Kathryn Sessions, D-Cheyenne

"Anybody that has dedicated that many years to public service needs to be commended and respected for the sacrifices that they’ve made in the public service."

-- Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron Micheli

"He'll be remembered as, I think, a well-liked, popular governor who's led Wyoming through some exceptional times."

-- House Speaker Colin Simpson, R-Cody

"He left the state in a good place. ...I have said publicly many times that I think Gov. Freudenthal's done a pretty good job for Wyoming."

-- Republican gubernatorial candidate Matt Mead

"It's obviously going to be a new era for the state, and it's also a loss for the state, too. He's done a magnificent job for eight years."

-- State Sen. Mike Massie, D-Laramie

"Thank you to the governor and certainly to Mrs. Freudenthal for their service to the state of Wyoming. He's been in that office going into his eighth year, and I know full well the toll that takes on both the governor and his family."

-- State Auditor Rita Meyer, GOP gubernatorial candidate

"Dave has been a good spokesman and salesman for our state. His fiscal conservatism and his recognition of the power of the Legislature has resulted in good things getting done and bad things from happening. Assuming the rest of the year goes well, Dave will be pleased with his legacy, and I thank him for his service."

-- U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.

"Gov. Freudenthal has created a lasting legacy for our state. There's no question that Dave always puts Wyoming first. We've enjoyed a great working relationship, and our state has excelled under his leadership."

-- U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.

Posted in Govt-and-politics on Friday, March 5, 2010 12:00 am Updated: 2:39 pm. 

sumber:

-www.sheridanmedia.com

-www.trib.com