Ultram. Ultram online no prescription ship to florida. How the medicine ultram i….

The strangest part of Hanania’s post is:

And even if Blagojevich did not articulate a program during an election, he articulated his mission and agenda in specific and broad strokes and people voted for him because they trust his judgment and instincts and his commitment to doing what’s right. So when he does unveil a new program after an election, at least he’s not like most other politicians who promise not to increase major taxes before an electiona nd then turns around and does it with ghusto.

Putting aside the obvious misspellings (in the interest of being civil — we all make typos), it’s rather interesting that Hanania thinks that an multi-billion dollar new tax does not qualify as increasing general taxes with “gusto.”

But the real issue I have with this statement is the first sentence. Reading this together with his original post, it seems that Hanania is saying that once we elect a Governor, the legislative branch must defer to that Governor regardless of what he proposes.

It’s an odd view of our (small “r”) republican form of government, that is built on a system of checks and balances. My vote for Governor — or President, for that matter — is not a vote for some sort of benign authoritarian executive. Neither is my vote for members of the General Assembly a vote for a rubber-stamp legislator.

We can have a debate about the problems with the implementation of legislative power in Illinois, especially with so many non-competitive districts. We can also debate whether the leadership of the General Assembly has too much power. But I think the principle that our constitution has a system of checks and balances on both legislative and executive power is beyond debate.

The troublesome issue is the parallel between the actions of the Blagojevich administration and the notion of a “unitary executive” being pursued by the Bush administration. Surely Hanania is not suggesting that because Bush was elected by the people, Congress should just roll over and go along with every program and policy his administration pursues? Then why suggest that a state’s chief executive be entitled to the same deference?

If, in fact, Hanania believes that the General Assembly should serve as a rubber stamp for policies pursued by the Governor, this leaves them only one important function in state government: the power to impeach. I would much rather prefer a legislature that simply votes against proposals from the Governor with which they disagree than a legislature that must act only through impeachment proceedings.

Maybe the issue Hanania raises is that Madigan — who is elected only by his district — wields too much power at the expense of other members of the GA. Perhaps. But then I wonder what Hanania makes of Jones’s refusal to allow a vote on overriding the Governor’s line item veto of the budget? What about Jones’s refusal to allow a vote on Fritchey’s ethics bill — a bill supported by a vast majority of legislators, and one that fully fits into Blagojevich’s campaign message?