Probably not, but I am pulling for naming the funding bill the “Iraq Force Withdrawal Act” regardless of what it actually does, a la the “Patriot Act” and make Bush sign it. It has the side benefit of forcing pro-war Republicans to vote for it as well, could be useful in the 2008 elections.
I’m not sure, but I’d venture to say that the Democrats in Congress are not as opposed to this war as their liberal followers think. When it comes down to it, most Democrats will not want to, as Bush would call it, cut and run.
And your point is . . .?
I think you’ll be disappointed.
And that’s by design, you don’t want one branch of the gov’t overwhelming the others. They could impeach cabinet officers (I believe) if they wanted but Congress has plenty of ways to stop certain executive branch actions if they chose to use them.
It’s not clear what exactly your complaint is. It you want the government to respond quickly to the will of the people, sorry, that’s not the way the system is designed. There are checks and balances against that, too. Some parts of gov’t are swift to react, others are more long-term and deliberative.
While I strongly disagree with President Bush on most all important issues, I recognize that he was elected to that office and in 2 years he’ll be gone. Such is life. For most of the past 10 years the party I didn’t like was in control of things and it appears that the balance has recently shifted. Congress has always had the ability to check the White House, perhaps now they will exercise those powers.
Are you serious. Everybody was happy when Rumsfeld resigned, resigned being the operative word.
Well my objection is to your system and the insufficiency of your checks and balances. The rest of us in the world can only conclude that you have two years of a dictatorship left.
You Americans are so patient. Meanwhile, how many more American and Iraqi lives will be lost as a result? You guys (and the rest of us) really have a problem and just bashing Bush around ain’t solving it. The rest of us can’t help but you Americans are able to change your constitution to allow for more accountablity for your president.
How?
You mean, like Tony Blair has been forced to step down? 
:rolleyes: :dubious:
Go back and learn something about how our system really works, and you might want to take a look at the various fairly egregious examples of abuse of power that predated its formation, found in the British Parliamentary System.
Congress has substantial control over the President’s actions, as the current incumbent is about to discover. Prior to this Congress, he had the support of the legislature; his actions now are sure to change. Budgets do that to you…
If he were subject to the British parliamentary system he would still have the support of Congress, because there’s no such thing as a “mid-term election”. We would still have the Republican Congress elected in 2004.
As others have tried to point out, it’s not as though the mess in Iraq is entirely Bush’s fault or that there’s nothing America could do about it as long as Bush is in the White House.
Of course the USA system has checks and balances. Bushie keeps demanding more cheques, and the nations debt keeps getting way out of balance. <<rimshot>>
Excuse me? Dictatorship? Either you’re intentionally exaggerating, have no idea what the word “dictatorship” means, or you’re an <checks forum locale> um… greatly misinformed person.
I’m a Canadian and would like to state the the OP in no way represents me and (I sincerely hope) the general Canadian view of the American system of government.
You guys do spend months on end running up to every fourth November yakking about it, though. Something really bad would have to happen to our parliamentary system for me to want to replace our current one-month campaigns for something like a national primary system. I’d like an elected Senate, though. And a Republic. And a pony.
Yeah, well that was in the day of muskets. Now it takes a push of a button to start the world on the road tof obliteration.
Why is it that antiquated ideas when codified as part of a nation’s early history become sacrosanct? Time changes, the world changes, and ideas which may once have been valid and valuable fall far behind the advances that time brings. So what that it was part of the founding of a nation? Now it’s maybe not such a great idea anymore so perhaps it’s time for a change.
If the rest of the world really thinks this, then the rest of the world is full of idiots. The U.S. is far from a dictatorship. In fact, the numerous checks and balances (what you dismiss as “inefficiency”) in our system prevent a dictatorship from happening.
If the American public really wanted out of Iraq, they would have elected a radically liberal Congress last year. They did not – they elected a slim Democratic majority that will continue the current policy in much the same form as before. Your premise that the will of Americans is being frustrated by the President simply does not hold water.
It sure isn’t. So why are you doing it?
Our President is extremely accountable, if we choose to hold him so. With the new Congress, we voted for more oversight and more opposition to him. You don’t seem to grasp that.
Could you explain to those of us to whom these ‘numerous checks and balances’ are not obvious? What, exactly, are they?
Basically, our three branches of government (legislative, judicial, and executive) are all co-equal and each checks the authority of the other. Congress can pass a law, but the President can veto it. Or, if the President signs it, the Supreme Court can invalidate it. Congress must appropriate money for any military operation, so the President’s authority to wage war is limited. Etc. Basically, for anything to happen, all three branches must be in rough agreement.
If I may take slight umbrage with this, it’s the media and the small minority of political junkies that spend months on end yakking about it. Most of us, for better or for worse, simply don’t care that much. Personally, I pay enough attention to be able to make an informed decision, but beyond that, it takes up very little of my mental time and energy.
This doesn’t even make sense as language. “It entails virtually 50% in the life of an American?” What the heck does that mean?
In addition, if Congress passes a law, and the President vetos it, Congress can override that veto, but needs a much larger majority in order to do so – I think it’s 2/3.
Congress itself is bi-cameral, and there are checks and balances there, too. For example, all financial legislation must originate in the House of Representatives, which is elected roughly by population. In order to become law, any bill must be approved by both houses.
Basically, it takes serious time and energy to change anything, which is as intended, so that important issues don’t get decided on a passing whim of one person or group. I realize that other democracies have variations on these themes that work for them. But the U.S. was the first IIRC to put it into effect.
Regarding the time that campaigns and elections take, I know a lot of us are also somewhat impatient and tired of the constant barrage of campaign-related “news.” Many of us ignore it. However, it does serve some valid purposes as compared to the relatively brief campaign periods in some other countries. It is nearly impossible, for example, for a candidate to have any scandal or secret go undetected. This is of course both good and bad, since irrelevant, decades-old pecadillos also get paraded about, but at least we all have a chance to decide if it is really irrelevant. Whether that makes a real difference in the quality of the elected officials is left as an exercise for the reader.
I assume he means that presidential campaigns last about two years, and therefore occupy half of each four-year election cycle.
This is often contrasted unfavorably with the short duration of parliamentary campaigns, as timed from the dissolution of Parliament until the next election, but IMO this is not a fair comparison.
The primary process is analogous to the leadership contests that take place within the parties, in a parliamentary system, between elections. These vary in length, depending on national and party rules, but can sometimes be quite drawn out.
The parliamentary election campaign is comparable to the general election in November. If you measure from the dissolution it doesn’t last very long, but the politicking and debating and spin-mongering start well before the dissolution. In fact, in a sense, they never stop–with the opposition leader questioning the government in Parliament, the parliamentary system is more of a permanent campaign–by design–then our presidential system.
Finally, again, to anybody who thinks that we’d be rid of that evil meanie George W. Bush if only America had a parliamentary system–we wouldn’t. He would have been elected with a stable parliamentary majority in 2004, and his mandate would still have three years to run. There would have been no 2006 mid-term election, no Democratic majority in Congress, and even less check on his ability to wage war than there is today. In theory he could be removed by his own caucus, but that happens in Parliamentary systems as often as Halley’s comet comes around, and even if it happened the Republican caucus would replace him with someone like McCain or Frist or Cheney who would have little more appeal to most members of this Board.
Poor construction I admit, Excellent point Rickjay. What I meant was that every four years, we get to follow 2 years of media reports and speculations regarding the “race to the white house”. If one pays any attention to American news, you can’t miss it.
On the other hand, there is room for criticizing how much of the candidates’ time and energy—and money—it takes up.