Time for what some may consider a political post.
Category None
OK I admit it, I'm not American so I don't understand why the American President is given so much power by the American people. 1st off I don't get the whole veto thing, it seams awfully close to letting one person be a dictator in a democracy, yeah yeah the veto can be over ruled, but not if the elected parties are too scared to vote against the person. Most recently, I am confused by the way a president can claim executive privilidge and people never having to be questioned etc. If a president and their staff are doing things illegaly, how can that be investigated if they never have to answer questions?
Now this is not something political along party lines, this is just a political post I guess, I mean if it was a left wing or right wing president in power I would have the same concerns about one person wielding so much power over a country. So I wonder does it concern Americans? There I have it off my chest, I'm sure someone somewhere will some how be offended by my questions but has that ever bothered me?
OK I admit it, I'm not American so I don't understand why the American President is given so much power by the American people. 1st off I don't get the whole veto thing, it seams awfully close to letting one person be a dictator in a democracy, yeah yeah the veto can be over ruled, but not if the elected parties are too scared to vote against the person. Most recently, I am confused by the way a president can claim executive privilidge and people never having to be questioned etc. If a president and their staff are doing things illegaly, how can that be investigated if they never have to answer questions?
Now this is not something political along party lines, this is just a political post I guess, I mean if it was a left wing or right wing president in power I would have the same concerns about one person wielding so much power over a country. So I wonder does it concern Americans? There I have it off my chest, I'm sure someone somewhere will some how be offended by my questions but has that ever bothered me?
Comments
To me, it is scary what you are describing. It is the recipe for all major Things Gone Wrong In History. And everyone is saying it, and it seems there is no power to change the situation. How can this happen in the US? It freaks my mind out...
Posted by Adeleida At 02:01:26 PM On 08/02/2007 | - Website - |
At the core of our system is that no man, or person, is above the law. However, all three branches of the federal govt have broad powers and these powers are frequently at odds with each other. Of course, when the congress was controlled by the Replubicans, we didnt' hear much about executive priviledge (since they weren't providing any real oversight). However, now that congress is calling people to testify, the bush camp appears nervous that all of their internal discussions/decisions/etc.. will become an open book. In addition, in cases where they actually broke the law, these issues will be surfaced.
So, while Bush can claim executive priviledge, it's not apparent how much priviledge he actually has (i.e can he cover up actions that were illegal). It's also not completely clear how much authority congress has to provide oversight and overule his claim. If push comes to shove, the courts will decide this. However, I don't think either the congress or the executive want to push it all the way to the courts (basically, because after the courts decide, one side will lose some power and one side will gain some power).
I'm quite pleased with how the political system is both expunging and exposing the unpleasant, and incompetent, actions of the last 6 years.
Executive priviledge is the last card that Bush has to play, since he effectively has lost all of his political capital. The calmer voices in the crowd will settle this argument before it reaches a constitutional issue that is settled by the courts. In any event, the natural tension and power struggle inherent in the system is now clearly visible.
Posted by Peyton At 02:10:45 PM On 08/02/2007 | - Website - |
The extent of the scandal so far exceeds that of Watergate that it is almost numbing to contemplate. That and a good bridge collapse every week or two to keep the media distracted, and they just might continue to get away with it. However if the media does its job the way it's supposed to (not sure if that's a joke or not) I don't see how we can avoid impeachment.
Posted by Kevin At 06:58:50 PM On 08/02/2007 | - Website - |
The history, if you read it closely, is one of tension -- and that is by design. Our system pits the three branches of government against each other, and there are many boundaries that are unclear, therefore each branch pushes against the others to create a dynamic balance, which shifts with the political winds -- but with lag times induced by the fact that elections happen only every so often The reality is that this is a very good thing, because taken as a whole it prevents rapid swings from one direction to the other.
As an aside, because judicial precedents are long-lasting, it isn't in the interest of either party to have a lot of definitive rulings come down from the Supreme Court on the exact limits of executive privilege. Since the question comes up mainly in terms of investigations and scandals, and each party knows that there are plenty of opportunities for such things in every administration, they'd much rather leave issues up to a battle of political strength, rather than letting the judiciary set a precedent that might come back to bite them in the arse at a time when their own political strength is weak.
So here we have the case that the executive is pushing back against the legislative, and because the opposing party in the legislature does not have sufficient majority to over-ride vetos or impeach (not without a significant number of the minority party switching sides) therefore the executive can hold the legislative majority to a standstill. This is where the judicial branch comes in, but only if the legislative decides that they want it to. Nobody else will have standing to bring the case, and so it comes down to a question: what is there to gain from defeating the claim of privilege, and what is there to lose? What they can gain is possibly unseating the AG in this particular case, but probably nothing more. And unseating the AG is a loss, too, because he's a great whipping boy at the moment and as long as he stays in office they can continue to remind the public how slimy and incompetent he is. And more to the point is what they can lose, which is the ability for a President from their own party (a pretty high likelihood starting in 2009) to assert the same privilege.
Posted by Richard Schwartz At 07:36:13 PM On 08/02/2007 | - Website - |
I predict that our next president should be able to figure out the math of 100% minus 20 something %
Posted by Dwight Wilbanks At 03:07:12 AM On 08/03/2007 | - Website - |
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/08/018107.php
Posted by Chris Whisonant At 12:38:46 PM On 08/03/2007 | - Website - |
Posted by Carl Tyler At 12:48:10 PM On 08/03/2007 | - Website - |
The think I have about E.P is the current argument is it applies to allow advisers to have free and flowing conversations with the presidnet without feeling that all thier suggestions may not come to light, like Dr/Patient or lawyer/client relationships. One would hope (naively) that the advisors are not sugesting illegal activites in the first place, so what are they afraid of... but whatchagonnado?
Posted by Steven At 01:35:12 PM On 08/03/2007 | - Website - |
Posted by Bruce Perry At 07:56:48 PM On 08/06/2007 | - Website - |