Thought for the Day

[broncofan]

What I always find paradoxical about the US is that your country was founded as a reaction against autocracy, and the founding fathers clearly intended a fairly limited presidency. yet you have ended up with a powerful imperial presidency. The same thing has happened in parliamentary democracies to a degree - the executive has increased its power at the expense of the legislature. But the critical difference in a parliamentary system is that it's much easier to remove a leader who proves unsuitable. Leaders are often removed by their own party when they become too unpopular.

The founding fathers seem to have assumed that there would be enough people of good conscience on both sides of Congress to constrain and, if necessary, remove Presidents who abused their power. They did not envisage a situation in which a President's party would largely continue to support him whatever he did. I suspect that may prove to be the fatal flaw in the US system in the long term, and possibly in the short term.

I agree that the founders didn't expect this kind of factionalism. They seemed to discuss at length the bad faith of individuals but did not expect it to be so systemic. One issue that partly explains the strength of our executive is the fact that we had a failed government under the Articles of Confederation, in which our federal government didn't even have the power to levy taxes or regulate commerce and states could coin their own money. It is a surprise that in making the adjustment they would not just create a unitary executive, but one whose power could only be curtailed by removal from office. They provide a mechanism for the removal but not a built-in mechanism to insulate the investigation that would lead to his removal.

There was an entire discussion about whether the creation of a unitary executive was a betrayal of the revolution or whether there would still be enough to distinguish a President and a King but they clearly thought that accountability to the public every four years would be more salutary than it is.

I also think it's a bit paradoxical that they ended up deciding on something that insulated the President so much. They were very clear that impeachment should not operate as a no confidence vote and made both the standard for impeaching the President high (treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors) as well as the institutional safeguards (bicameral votes of 1/2 and 2/3 respectively). They could not have possibly known that our system would develop the way it did and that the second vote in the senate would be virtually unattainable.

What's interesting is that when the founders were discussing the impeachment process they considered having the impeachment trial in the Judiciary, but thought there was a GREATER chance of the process being politicized given that the Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President. They did seem to anticipate the types of ways in which a President could abuse his power. Consider this direction by Madison: "if the President uses pardon power in a corrupt way, by pardoning crimes he himself has advised, impeachment is the remedy."

In the end I think you're right. They expected there would be corrupt officials but they didn't anticipate such tribalism, where factions would develop over the best way to run the country, and it would prevent people from performing their duties honorably. They seemed to take for granted that people would behave badly but that Congressmen would see themselves as distinct from the President.

[peejaye]

What I always find paradoxical about the US is that your country was founded as a reaction against autocracy, and the founding fathers clearly intended a fairly limited presidency. yet you have ended up with a powerful imperial presidency. The same thing has happened in parliamentary democracies to a degree - the executive has increased its power at the expense of the legislature. But the critical difference in a parliamentary system is that it's much easier to remove a leader who proves unsuitable. Leaders are often removed by their own party when they become too unpopular.

The founding fathers seem to have assumed that there would be enough people of good conscience on both sides of Congress to constrain and, if necessary, remove Presidents who abused their power. They did not envisage a situation in which a President's party would largely continue to support him whatever he did. I suspect that may prove to be the fatal flaw in the US system in the long term, and possibly in the short term.

Is it possible anyone out there, preferably in the US, can translate this utter fucking drivel into simple Layman's English?

[peejaye]

Funny how the Political Elite are remaining tight lipped about what's happened in Korea today & what, if any, involvement Donald Trump may of had?

[Stavros]

What I always find paradoxical about the US is that your country was founded as a reaction against autocracy, and the founding fathers clearly intended a fairly limited presidency. yet you have ended up with a powerful imperial presidency. The same thing has happened in parliamentary democracies to a degree - the executive has increased its power at the expense of the legislature. But the critical difference in a parliamentary system is that it's much easier to remove a leader who proves unsuitable. Leaders are often removed by their own party when they become too unpopular.
The founding fathers seem to have assumed that there would be enough people of good conscience on both sides of Congress to constrain and, if necessary, remove Presidents who abused their power. They did not envisage a situation in which a President's party would largely continue to support him whatever he did. I suspect that may prove to be the fatal flaw in the US system in the long term, and possibly in the short term.

The ideas in your lucid post have been dealt with in the article in the New York Times linked below on the forthcoming judgement of the Supreme Court on the 'Muslim travel ban' which they expect the Court to uphold.

In effect, Congress has created a permissive environment in which Presidential power is exceeding the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution, primarily because Congress is itself reluctant to make decisions which are then 'kicked upstairs' as opposed to 'down the road'.

The USA may be on the verge of a serious crisis as Presidential power exceeds its Constitutional limits but the Supreme Court argues it is for Congress not the Court to take action against the President to restore its authority, which a Republican Congress may be reluctant to do. If the travel ban is upheld by the Court then it would mean that Religion has become a definite component of immigration policy which would be Unconstitutional thus presenting the bizarre case of the Supreme Court that is supposed to maintain and interpret the Constitution giving the President the legal right to subvert it.

That the ban is selective in order to protect the financial interests of the President may only add to the moral impurity of the decision of both the Court and the President.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/o...e=sectionfront

[peejaye]

Breathtaking.... life in the fucking fast lane. Never a dull moment with these two party animals around

[buttslinger]

In Kollege they taught us about two tribes in Africa- one tribe was very conservative, distrusting, lots of fences and distrust, the other was very liberal, every kid was raised by the village. Because it was Kollege, we weren't allowed to assume that the Enlightened Tribe was entitled to look down on the Suspicious Tribe, you have to step outside the situation to see it clearly.
Why aren't the Republicans interested in the Putin Side of this?? Most of my Life we were at war with Russia, what happened? Did Conservative Media make Nancy Pelosi eviler than Putin? If Putin's fingerprints are on the Mueller Investigation, shit will fly!!!!

[peejaye]

Apologies to my US colleagues but I just thought I'd post this.

[filghy2]

The USA may be on the verge of a serious crisis as Presidential power exceeds its Constitutional limits but the Supreme Court argues it is for Congress not the Court to take action against the President to restore its authority, which a Republican Congress may be reluctant to do.

It used to be assumed that the main dangers to democracy were external (communism and nazism), but we may about to find out how easily democracy can be subverted from the inside. It's hard to see how a healthy democracy can survive if one side refuses to accept any constraints on obtaining and exercising power by any means possible, which is where the Republicans have been heading for some time.

There seems to be three ways that this can go:
(a) The US heads in the direction of countries like Hungary and Poland, where the ruling party gains control over all arms of government and manipulates these to entrench itself in power and suppress opposition.
(b) Voters desert the Republican party to such a degree that it is forced to change its ways to avoid remaining in the political wilderness indefinitely.
(c) Voters desert the Republican party but it remains in the grip of white nationalists who refuse to reform, with its supporters increasingly resorting to political violence.

[Stavros]

It used to be assumed that the main dangers to democracy were external (communism and nazism), but we may about to find out how easily democracy can be subverted from the inside. It's hard to see how a healthy democracy can survive if one side refuses to accept any constraints on obtaining and exercising power by any means possible, which is where the Republicans have been heading for some time.

There seems to be three ways that this can go:
(a) The US heads in the direction of countries like Hungary and Poland, where the ruling party gains control over all arms of government and manipulates these to entrench itself in power and suppress opposition.
(b) Voters desert the Republican party to such a degree that it is forced to change its ways to avoid remaining in the political wilderness indefinitely.
(c) Voters desert the Republican party but it remains in the grip of white nationalists who refuse to reform, with its supporters increasingly resorting to political violence.

At the moment I would opt for C, but I would add that using 'States Rights' the fourth option which is not so far from reality is States using their control of the electoral process to maintain Republican Party control where the electorate is mostly Democrat largely because of your option B. Voter Suppression, Voter Registration controls and gerrymandered district boundaries seem to me to me attacks on the process of democracy and I am surprised the Democrats have not made more of this as a national issue.

If the US was serious about political reform, and again, the Democrats ought to be pushing it, control of the electoral process should be taken away from the States and given to an Independent Electoral Commission which would draw district boundaries, and be responsible for the registration of voters, and the efficient management of elections in every part of the State. There are also other potential changes which I am not sure if the US has considered before but look like this:

The USA has a House of Representatives with 435 seats for a population of 325 million, the UK equivalent, the House of Commons has 650 seats (to be reduced to 600) for a population of 65 million; Australia has 150 seats in its House of Representatives for a population of 24 million. It seems to me that the US needs to adapt to a rise in population and accordingly amend its seats in the House of Representatives to take account of that growth.

There are opportunities for change that would improve the spread of democratic representation, and there are opportunities for mischief that may undermine faith in that democracy. The US has in the past been more open to change than most European countries, I wonder if the Democrats are aware of the potential they have to make voting more attractive to the next generation?

[peejaye]

What Planet you two fucking psychopaths are orbiting is anyones business ?
& what website you're getting your warped information from is a mystery, USA in crisis? YOU fucking wish! Only yesterday an economist on CNN said the economy & employment were doing well & Trumps involvement in Korea is also looking favorable for him.
Change the fucking record, no ones fucking listening.