So far. We did, too, for a couple of centuries. It’s not something inherent to your system that makes it work. It’s the people in power wanting to make it work. When the people in power stop wanting that, it stops working.
That was the idea, at least, except that it isn’t actually true. The House has exactly as much power over spending as the Senate does, and the President has nearly as much.
I agree, of course, that Congress is derelict in exercising their “checks and balances” power. But I have scientifically determined that this is only 40% of the root cause.
60% of the problem is that when 99% of the Federal enforcement power resides within one branch (just look at all the percentages I’ve come up with!), and that branch is headed by a scoundrel, checks and balances are ignored.
To use an archaic phrase, Trump has “all the guns and horses.” A constitution without a means of cross-branch enforcement is just a piece of paper if it relies on the honor system.
Probably so; I’m trying to objectively lay out the differences, not make value judgements.
Another, related difference is that election campaigns are quite short in the British system (about five weeks, as I understand it). Here, election campaigns can last a year or more, and candidates typically have to run for two separate elections: a “primary” election, in which they are running against other members of their own party to secure their party’s nomination for the office, and then the “general” election, in which the nominees from the different parties attempt to actually win the seat. Usually, months pass between the primary and the general election.
The net of this is that Representatives (whose terms last two years) are actively campaigning for at least half of each term. People who are considering a Presidential bid (especially if they are in the party which won’t have an incumbent running) are often informally campaigning for a year or more prior to the first primaries and caucuses, and making appearances in those early states (e.g., Iowa and New Hampshire).
No. Lists are created by the bar associations with judges and lawyers they feel are qualified, the PM picks from this list. Judges are apolitical in the Canadian system, in intent and in fact. Justices serve until death, early retirement, or 75 so they don’t need to be reappointed.
That is a danger with a directly-elected President. Someone who is sufficiently popular and who hs sufficiently devoted voter support, can wield more influence and direct power than the founders anticipated.
For most of our country’s existence, the balance of powers as enumerated in the Constitution have relied on the participants (congress, the courts, and the president) to have generally good intentions and respect for the intent of that document, and they have operated within those guidelines.
Now we have an administration and a large number of legislators who have bad intentions and no respect for that intent and those guidelines. The Supreme Court, which should be the bulwark for the defense of the constitution, has become subverted by ideology, due entirely to the actions of those legislators, and that and previous administrations. Opposition is not focused because the opposition does not have a popular leader to start with, and is not as united ideologically as the side currently in power.
Voters bear the final responsibility, of course. The course of the past 10 years has revealed to anyone who wants to see that a minority of dedicated voters can be worth more to getting in and staying in power than a majority of scattered and unfocused voters, not to mention those too uninvolved to vote at all.
This is not true.
The UK had Boris Johnson, Italy has Giorgia Meloni of the Brothers of Italy party, Hungary has Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of the Fidesz party, and so forth.
No, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with armed revolt against the government.
Right. If indeed the Dems take the House in the November Elections, you will see a pretty big change.
cough Boris cough Johnson.
But if the Senate is composed of the other party or even a handful of reasonable people, the worst candidates cant get in.
Right.
The American democracy was really the first. As such, it has a few bugs. It’s taken 250 years for them to really become apparent and significant.
Political parties were not really part of the plan. Having just two of them worked for quite a while but now, one of them has turned fascist and the other thinks it only needs to be the other one. Perhaps having a few more would require coalitions fostering cooperation and compromise.
The electoral college was supposed to be real and serious. They were supposed to function as a sort of search committee. The voters would know who the electors were and choose people who would think and consult about it.
Fixed terms may have worked back then. Now, it’s not looking so good. Living with el donald for almost another three years is going to be difficult, especially if his mental state continues to deteriorate. At least we don’t need to wait for George III to finally die. Over in the pit, there is a fun thread awaiting the modern equivalent.
No, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with armed revolt against the government.
Huh? While the primary purpose was to maintain an armed populace to defend against foreign invaders, there absolutely was discussion and letters amongst the founders regarding overthrowing a tyrannical domestic government. Having an armed population is another check on government power, even if it’s distasteful to contemplate… except perhaps by those who hate the standing president.
At the 200-year mark, was the president a guy who hadn’t really been elected president or VP, but had pardoned the crook who handed him the presidency?
For all its flaws, the government in 1976 was lightyears ahead of what we have now. People of good will were trying to do what’s right. (with the exception of Nixon, but eventually even his own party insisted that he had to go)
True, but there is some nuance there.
Gerald Ford – who, by all accounts, was an honorable and respected Representative, known for his honesty, before he was named vice-president – had stated that he pardoned Nixon in an effort to put the Watergate crisis behind the country, and prevent a long, divisive criminal investigation and trial. Ford also wanted the government, and the nation, to focus on numerous other crises at that moment, including the first energy crisis, an economic recession, and the ongoing conflict in Vietnam.
Many people at that time (and, probably, still today) thought that the pardon was a quid pro quo for being elevated to Vice-President, then President, but I personally think that Ford made the choice for what he perceived to be the good of the country, knowing that doing so likely ended his political career.
Also, parenthetically, if the Agnew and Nixon scandals had occurred a decade earlier, it would have been an even bigger mess. It wasn’t until the 25th Amendment (ratified in 1967, in the wake of JFK’s assassination) that the President was allowed to name a new Vice-President if the post became vacant. Without it, Nixon could not have appointed Ford to replace Spiro Agnew (who resigned in disgrace a year before Nixon), and, AIUI, there would have not been a VP to elevate to the Presidency upon Nixon’s resignation; Carl Albert (then the Speaker of the House) would have become the Acting President.
That might have been Ford’s intention, but it failed. The way to put Watergate behind us was to put Nixon on trial.
I suspect he believed that he chose the less-bad option. Whether he was correct or not is a different story.
Cite? While some of the founders did believe in a “right to rebel” (obviously), and they did think that part of the 2nd was a right to resist the Federal government, I cant find anything that connect the 2nd with the ability to overthrow the government.
The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.
This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.
Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.
The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.
However, this gets close to yet another gun control debate. Perhaps another thread?
The President had/has the right to nominate a new Veep, the Congress has to confirm that.
What country? (I can dream, can’t I?)
An impeachment trial of Nixon in the Senate followed by a criminal trial would have made for great theater. TV and the movies are full of jury trials. The reality is that the vast majority of criminal cases are settled with a plea deal.
He does now, thanks to the 25th; he didn’t before 1967.
When LBJ became President in 1963, after JFK was assassinated, he did not have, and could not legally nominate or name, a new vice-president. LBJ did not have a vice-president until after the 1964 election, when Hubert Humphrey, his running mate in '64, was elected along with LBJ on the ticket.
Nixon wasn’t the vast majority of cases, though. I doubt anyone in that hypothetical trial, defense or prosecution, would have been interested in a plea deal.
But even if it had come down to a plea deal, that would still be more closure than we got, and would firmly establish the precedent that no one, not even the President, is above the law.
Having lived in Canada for 58 years, I feel that the parliamentary system is an elected dictatorship, assuming it is a majority government, which is mostly the case. Though Trump can try to primary any member who pisses him off, he cannot guarantee that. But the PM controls his party apparatus and can and occasionally does prevent any MP who opposes them from running under the party label and can parachute in the candidate of his choice.
There are two big problems with the American system. First is the primary system that works against moderate candidates and tends to generate ideological extremists. Second is the role of money. I once read an op-ed piece by a congressman. He said that in order to pay for his next campaign, he’s gotta raise $30,000 a week. Every week. And if he goes on vacation one week, he’s gotta raise $60,000 the next. That’s a little over $3M over their 2 year term. One consequence is that they depend heavily on lobbyists.
The point that the US constitution was first is well taken. The Swiss made their own in 1815 based in part on the US’s. They have an upper house with each Canton having two senators (there are a couple “half cantons” with one each) and a lower house representing populations. BUT, major difference, the executive power is vested in a govening council of seven chosen, IIRC, from the senate by the senate. Every year one of that council is designated as the president for the year, but the designation is purely honorary and all 7 are equally powered. In fact, the average Swiss will not know who is the current president.
Yes, and how does your post here contradict what I said?
In fact I even replied to your post-
Why five more paragraphs when we agree?