astralis

Nuna, gunnut,

the main drivers of presidential power were benjamin harrison and theodore roosevelt, whom helped create the modern presidency.

FDR dramatically expanded presidential power during the great depression and WWII, but by the end of WWII, discomfort over the level of his powers and the end of the emergency (not to mention FDR's untimely death) caused these powers to largely wilt away. it was at this time that term limits were set by the 22nd amendment.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

astralis

what i find particularly interesting is the recent research by political historians. parliamentary democracies are generally born out of gradual evolution from a monarchical state, while presidential democracies are generally born out of revolution.

crooks

No, she just has well-defined limits - the Taoiseach is the Leader of state, the President is the Head, there's no other way to have it - the president is designed to be limited in this country, the Taoiseach holds the real power, and can be removed by the will of the people.

You evidently don't understand that we DO have elections, and despite our "flawed system" change government all the time - and you also don't seem to realise we have "coalitions" - so one party does not dominate, as no one holds the majority!
Government is a compromise, not with a strong minority whinging from one bench and the other side which was marginally less pathetic and won 20 or so more seats is in government .

Ah yes, You don't trust the people to form they're own government by directly voting for the party they think will represent them best, using the basic principle of democracy, as they're choice will often be "wrong" - such a great representation of why you're a (in my humble opinion) "Unhinged Fringe".

Got a hearty laugh there - thank you.

__________________
'An neart de an tir, an gra den daonra agus an gloir de Eireann'.

gunnut

You misunderstood my point.

Before the civil war, American people felt their loyalties were to the states first, before the union. The civil war changed that.

The post of the president of the United States is legally the leader of the union rather than the leader of the people. I'm not sure if we have a leader of the people. We elect people into Congress to voice our opinions, rather than tell us what's good for us. That was the original intent.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

gunnut

Thanks astralis. I knew you'd come through.

ExNavyAmerican

I wasn't equating them in terms of importance. I realize that parliamentry system has either a president, governor general (in Anglophone countries), or monarch as heads of state. What I was doing was equating them in terms of de facto power. For example (as I'm sure you know), the British monarch has sweeping powers -nearly dictatorial- on paper. The queen of the UK is limited by convention and anti-monarchist feelings. So even the little de facto power she does have is wielded in her name by the Prime Minister -but she has no control over what he does. Though King George VI did indeed appoint a PM outside of convention during WW2, the royal veto hasn't been used since Queen Anne (c. 1700). Furthermore, the House of Lords is fast losing all of its power which leaves just the Commons. Wjich means there are no checks, no balances, and the PM is wielding the powers of the executive, and is head of his party (the majority) in parliament. You don't see a problem with this picture? The only thing that keeps that system from falling apart is the relative honesty of the British. But fascists and communists aren't honest -so don't vote them in or you'll find yourself in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.

I didn't say that Britain, Canada, Australia, Ireland, ect were ready to collapse into anarchy. I meant that their government is unstable in its intent toward freedom. Like all democracy.

What I agree with is that the parties are elected according to the will of the people, and that is an advantage. But the people have bad haits of putting people in power who don't intend to let go. And the parliamentry system in any country gives them a lot of leeway.

True. Parties can be gotten rid of by no confidence votes. But would you agree that the checks and balances are somewhat unnecessary considering you could just do away with the convention that keeps the monarch from vetoing bills? The problem is that the head of the party in the House of Commons is also the PM, and therefore has the power to directly doctor legislation in parliament, without worrying about a royal veto. Being that he's head of the party, he's obviously (at the election anyway) on relatively good terms. Meaning that the "check" that parliament (or rather half of it) has over the PM is next to nonexistent. It remains so unless the PM does something against the party's election manifesto.

It's not the British version of the system that I have a problem with. It's worked for you for nearly a millennia. It's the system itself in general. The British as a people are relatively honorable, so the dangers are low -but there is always the chance. Blair came close.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson

ExNavyAmerican

Well, then you'd better start reading some history books. What eventually happens to every civilization? What happens to every government? What happens to the enviroment? Anything a human touches eventually falls apart. Sometimes we do well, other times we don't. But everyhing eventually falls apart. It's consistent with the 1st law. As an atheist, you believe that mankind is inherently good, and constantly getting better; history, science, and common sense disagree.

Every time we butt heads it comes to religion. Are you that insecure in your beliefs? So let's leave it at this. We're discussing political parties and systems.

If it works for them, that's fine. I just think ours is the best, and I'll give you reasons if you care to here. And, you're wrong. Canada and Australia were both influenced by ours. The Father of Confederation in Canada, though citing problems with our system (the partisanship of the president ironically), their concept of federalism came from us.

The British have displayed a remarkable ability for self-government. Where do you think we get it? We learned from your mistakes. My "beef" is with the system in general, in its raw form, it. Not with any specific system.

Blair pushed a law through creating a supreme court to take charge in 2009. This is a departure from the tradition of the Lords acting as the final court of appeals. The concept of an independent Supreme Court was first written into the American constitution.

I've given dynamic angles of the system, and my belief that the system is bad, is extremely 3D. If anything is 2D, it's the strange absence of counter-points in this post of yours.

ExNavyAmerican

Yes, well-defined limits. Her power is largely symbolic. She maybe CIC, but does she actually direct the military? I'm not sure. I know in Britain the military is directed by the PM.

On the contrary. I'm well aware you hold elections. And I'm also aware of the coalitions. It is a departure from the more unstable pluarilty rule that allowed a party that just wins a plurality of seats to for the government. That's what happened in Germany. The Nazis didn't have an actual majority; they had a plurality. But this is why I said that my main problem is the raw system in general; not any particular one. And the fact does remain that the Taoiseach, PM, Chancellor, Premier, ect holds power largely unchecked. He/She's head of the coalition, and will not be removed without going directly against an election manifesto.

If it will make you happy that I say yours and the British versions are happy (thanks to the Briton ability at self government), then I concede that. But that doesn't mean that both your systems doesn't have flaws that go beyond the normal imperfections; they're downright dangerous.

I'm a republican; not a democrat. Which means that I believe in republics; not democracies. Or, if you will, a proponet of Jeffersonian Democracy. I believe in the people's right to vote. That's why government should be a lot more regulated than it is in parliamentry system. To prevent from tyrants gaining power on accident.

Glad to be of help. I believe the fact of my statement is exhibited in 230 years without deviation from our constitution. That's why the Roman Republic was a success, and the Athenian democracy wasn't. We're starting to deviate now, but nothing that a little civil war won't heal.

And that's not be talking:

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

-Thomas Jefferson

I'm not fringe; I'm a constitutionalist. A Jeffersonian Democrat. A true American. If such people are by your definition fringe elements, then you might want to heal yourself, oh physician.

ExNavyAmerican

nuna.

Because we're also citizens of our respective states. We may be a nationalized federation, but we're still a federation. The states are sovereign. The president is akin a national leader, but he's constitutionally just the president of the union. Being that we're a free state, having a president of the people is considered tyranny by most Americans; he's a president for the people; though he's answerable to the Union rather than the people.

glyn

[quote=ExNavyAmerican;413419]Well, then you'd better start reading some history books.

I'm sure that I did, but still manage to see things somewhat differently to yourself. Perhaps it's a matter of perception.


What eventually happens to every civilization? What happens to every government? What happens to the enviroment? Anything a human touches eventually falls apart. Sometimes we do well, other times we don't. But everyhing eventually falls apart. It's consistent with the 1st law.

Every thing, system or whatever seems to have its place in the sun. Creatures evolve, reach a peak (and stop evolving) then decline and become extinct. Look at the named civilisations of the past. Where are they now? Mankind will become extinct eventually.

As an atheist, you believe that mankind is inherently good, and constantly getting better;

You've got the wrong end of that stick! I do not believe that man is inherently good. In fact I agree with the poet who wrote "Where every prospect pleases, and only man is vile".

history, science, and common sense disagree.

Every time we butt heads it comes to religion.

Ive noticed that too!


Are you that insecure in your beliefs?

Hardly, dear heart. Everything you say on the subject merely re-inforces my belief that religion is a man-made self deception (and control by others) method.

So let's leave it at this. We're discussing political parties and systems.



If it works for them, that's fine. I just think ours is the best, and I'll give you reasons if you care to here. And, you're wrong. Canada and Australia were both influenced by ours. The Father of Confederation in Canada, though citing problems with our system (the partisanship of the president ironically), their concept of federalism came from us.



The British have displayed a remarkable ability for self-government. Where do you think we get it? We learned from your mistakes. My "beef" is with the system in general, in its raw form, it. Not with any specific system.



Blair pushed a law through creating a supreme court to take charge in 2009. This is a departure from the tradition of the Lords acting as the final court of appeals. The concept of an independent Supreme Court was first written into the American constitution.

The House of Lords was a splendid organisation and served as the main check and balance - and New Labour were frustated by having so many of their bills thwarted there, so they made a mockery of the place by clearing out many of the members and then packing the place with their "enobled" placemen. The nation is the poorer for it.



I've given dynamic angles of the system, and my belief that the system is bad, is extremely 3D. If anything is 2D, it's the strange absence of counter-points in this post of yours.

Perhaps the above might do the job

crooks

ENA,

Of course not - the Minister for Defence directs it, as her representitive - it should be added she is held in high regard, both here and abroad, as was the previous Uáchtarain - she is also able to override the Minister of Defence on Military matters (though she never does).

I believe they have a MOD in Britain also.


Of course the system has flaws - ALL of them do (I disagree completely that ours are worse than any others), and the system we use is throughly debated over here, about how to better it and make it fairer, something you generally don't see in other parts of the world - If I thought it could do a better job I'd vote to switch to being a Federal Presidential Republic - as it stands, I don't rate the system, or the US way of using it.

I don't want you to concede anything - believe what you believe, it matters nothing to me.


That's great for you to believe so passionatly in your nation's success, I believe a similar thing about my own......the problem is it's very clear the US is not the best democracy in the world, it's seems to be the burden of the nation that carries the banner for Democracy has to lose some of it at home (and no, that's not a veiled Liberal reference to the Patriot act, before you ask ) - and as for Athenian democracy, well they were hardly a democracy (slaves and women?), the Roman Republic is a good example I guess.

I found this link interesting - http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/D...EX_2007_v3.pdf.

Give it a go, the EIU is very good in general, and spot on here.


In my view you very much are a fringe - but then, I can't expect you to see it, no one thinks of themselves as a fringe.

I'll give you one thing, your not boring .

ExNavyAmerican

It also served to show that we agree in at least one aspect.

ExNavyAmerican

Exactly. When I asked if she wields the powers of CIC, you said, "of course not". It's a matter of course that the power she holds is not exercised. The MoD represents her, but again, you say she never overides. It would be against convention. Which means that de facto power is held by the government exclusively. Though I'm sure in a military emergency she might exercise her largely formal powers of disolution and take control of the military. Kind of like the Roman dictators: constitutional offices granted to anonymous and honest people in time of emergency. The relatively nonpartisan stance of the president would make such a siezure temporary and safe.

They do. Subordinant to the PM

This will change into "does not", "does too". So I'll say just this. The United States set the standard for modern constitutions. Which is why I give it so much credit. And finally, such a system wouldn't work in Ireland because there's no call for it. The United States were originally 13 independent states. To unite them, we needed a federation. To keep then united, we needed a nationalized federation. Thus we have many clauses of the constitution which are called "nationalizing clauses". There are no such units in Ireland. You have counties which do each have local uniqeness, but nothing approaching the separateness between the original American states. Therefore, we have a nationalized federation where the states are sovereign within their sphere, and where the national government is sovereign within its. But the states are not altogether subordinant to the federal government. They're equals. So, again, there's no call for such a system in Ireland. Parliament works for you. It just has many holes. As you said, every system has holes, but parliamentry systems has holes that other systems don't.

I do believe that the British and Irish versions are well handled, but their wide-open to usurpers

The US is a democratic government (meaning it operates by using the vote), but it's nothing approaching a democracy. No one who believes in the original intent of the constitution ever wants it to be so. But again, if you meant that it's not the best democratic government I'd agree to an extent. But that's just because of the two-party system that that grew up. The original system itself was a good combination. But the thing is that the federal government was not supposed to be as influential as it is now. The people were originally only supposed to elect reps, senators were reps of the state governments. The federation is being devitalized. But that's another story.

I hope not. Let's not open that can of worms.

They were a limited democracy. They were the freest of the Greek city-states. They had a popular assembly, and juries. So again, they were a democracy; but limited.

The Roman Republic is actually a bad example of democracy. It was originally an extremely limited aristocratic republic. Only patricians were allowed in the Senate and they served for life. The Consulate too was open only to patricians. But the Plebians had their hand in it too. They had a popular assembl called the comitia, and a tribual like a supreme court that was only open to plebes. Eventually plebes were allowed into all offices through so-called "strikes" in times of crisis.

My point was that the Roman Republic was a success for about 300-400 because of its well-written constitution. The Athenian democracy, though influential today, failed after only 50 years. Laregly because of complacency on the part of the ever vital populace, and lack of a good constitution.

I took a look. Though a good part of it is thought-provoking, and I do agree with some of it. There is much of it I disgaree with. Democracy is a form of government where the people direcly vote on all issues. Civil Liberties are not necessarily inherent in true democracies because the majority can, and sometimes will, enslave the minority. That's all it is. No country on this earth is a true democracy. Or even an Athenian democracy which came close. The closest thing is parliamentry systems, hence the holes.

I will say it directly that I think democracy is a bad form of government, and am against it. Democratic governments, however, (using the basic components of democracy such as the vote) are different matters. I believe that governments that are democratic are just as flawed as pure democracy.

So, as glyn said, it's a matter of perception. I've been called a centrist. (I was pretty pissed. I hate that term "centrist".) I've bee called a fascist (again, pretty pissed, though I've gotten used to it by now), I've been called fringe. Someone even had the nerve to call me a liberal. I was livid.

One of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me on this board.

glyn