He had an important message about the upcoming Virginia elections. I hung up. I hate robocalls. If I could vote in Virginia Kaine would not be getting a tick on the ballot from me. He supported and signed into law the unconstitutional act which failed the equal establishment clause aimed at out of state drivers. I do not believe a separate executive exists to pass unconstitutional laws. They have a moral responsibility to acts as a rights referee and veto anything that contravenes a bill of rights. The 14th Amendment in the US Constitution is one of the few that obligates the states. Hence, in my opinion, Kaine failed his responsibilities.

I also don't like how President Bush is using the veto pen to force policy. Between that and a Republican party in the Senate that is filibustering as a minority, it is making difficult for the majority house in congress to pass a legislative agenda. The veto pen from the executive should be limited to tyrannical acts, not political acts or policy acts that the executive disagrees with. The veto is a relief valve to stop legislative tyranny, not stop legislative policy.

In other local news, the incumbent Senator for my area, Mark Herring, has progressed from County Government to the State Senate. This is his first term. he voted against the Virginia driving laws. I received literature from him recently in my mailbox which announced he was proud he voted against it. I had dealings with Herring when he was in County Government when we had issues with a road behind our house.

The local election also has one of our town councillors, Marty Martinez, running for the Virginian house. The town I live in is exceptionally well governed. It has followed that American ideal of keeping taxes low without services suffering. I think there are some services in the town that are unnecessary, however, in comparison to the county, state and federal government, the town is exceptionally tight in terms of governance.

Both Mark and Marty have been in my house when we have had local issues that have required political help and advice. If I could vote in this local district, they both would get my vote. Kaine, however, would not.
Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.

Comments
  • R343L . # . 3/3
    Really? Vetoes have been used like that in the American system *forever* (or it appears so to me). The Constitution says nothing about why he should refuse it, just that he doesn't approve of it and why. Maybe the early presidents saw it that way, but I don't think any have since the late 19th century (or at least not consistently). So, if you're going to criticize Bush for this, you need to be criticizing every president that has been alive in my lifetime, at least. :)
    • cam . # .
      I know the US Constitution makes no demands as to how the veto is used and it is quite within the scope of the executive to use the veto to force/guide policy. I think however, that the main purpose of a veto is to act as a buffer from legislative tyranny and there is a moral responsibility for the executive to use it in that manner.
      'Sworn to no party, and of no sect am I.' Frederick Vosper's republican motto.
      • R343L . # .
        Clearly, you can think that. Equally clear though is that very few recent (even not so recent?) presidents think so. Hardly fair to criticize Bush for something his predecessors did all the time. :)
        • avocadia . # .
          Except that he is the one doing it now. And if you are seeking to change how the power is used, there's not an awful lot of point lobbying Bill Clinton and George H. Bush to change the way they exercise their veto. You must strive to have George W. Bush change how he exercises it. Critising Bush is - in theory, if not in practice - a way to get him to change how he uses the power. You must also strive to have elected future Presidents that will exercise the veto power the way you would like. Which, hey! That's the point of the post.

          Whinging about the way Nixon and LBJ used the veto is wasted noise, and an exercise in objectivity masturbation.
          • R343L . # .
            I was objecting to it because it seemed contextless -- as if Bush was the only one to "misuse" his veto so much. If anything, Bush has misused it *less* because until the democrats took majority, he hardly vetoed anything. But then, I don't buy that the veto is only for stopping the legislature from doing something unconstitutional.