|
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
 Posted - 06/12/2003 : 08:16:29
|
Not being too familiar with the finer details of the U.S. Congress, I have a couple of questions to ask you guys.
In Australia, we have parliament question time, which takes place in the Lower House (House of Representatives), During this time, our elected members discuss relevant political events. Our Prime Minister before the Iraq war and now with issue of WMD's gets a constant grilling from the sitting members and sometimes has to respond to some tough questions. This is played live on TV, making thrilling viewing I might add I have only ever seen George Bush make speeches, punctuated by thunderous applause. Are there times where he has to face congress to explain why certain decisions have been or might be made?
A president may hold office for only two terms, I presume this is written in the Constitution. Is it at all possible for the ruling party to change this to keep a president in power for longer than the defined period? If so, what would the process be?
Are there any good links or books you could provide on the ins and outs of the American political system?
Edited for spelling..again
|
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
Edited by - gezzam on 06/12/2003 08:18:26
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/12/2003 : 09:21:14 [Permalink]
|
The 2 term rule for presidents, involving a Constitutional admendment, came into effect to keep Franklin Roosevelt from having a forth term, which he doubtless would have had. I've read that the last thing he wanted was another four years, but would have run on popular demand.
It seems that our presidents appear for a Congressional grilling only when they're impeached (let it happen soon!). I think your system of periodicly dragging the bastard in for some answers is far better than ours.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2003 : 22:55:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by gezzam
Not being too familiar with the finer details of the U.S. Congress, I have a couple of questions to ask you guys.
Are there any good links or books you could provide on the ins and outs of the American political system?
The president is not really a very important job. And it's only 1/3 of the puzzle that is the government.
There are many government web sites that say what the system does. All end in .gov
Will get back to you on the books if I think or hear of any soon.
ps. people want to think the pres. is a power but he's not supposed to be. I don't know why or how over time anyone let him get so powerful.....if he is! |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2003 : 07:33:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by gezzam
Not being too familiar with the finer details of the U.S. Congress, I have a couple of questions to ask you guys.
In Australia, we have parliament question time, which takes place in the Lower House (House of Representatives), During this time, our elected members discuss relevant political events. Our Prime Minister before the Iraq war and now with issue of WMD's gets a constant grilling from the sitting members and sometimes has to respond to some tough questions. This is played live on TV, making thrilling viewing I might add I have only ever seen George Bush make speeches, punctuated by thunderous applause. Are there times where he has to face congress to explain why certain decisions have been or might be made?
A president may hold office for only two terms, I presume this is written in the Constitution. Is it at all possible for the ruling party to change this to keep a president in power for longer than the defined period? If so, what would the process be?
Are there any good links or books you could provide on the ins and outs of the American political system?
Edited for spelling..again
Actually the term limit on President is 10 years. (US Constitution, 22nd Amendment) The amendment was passed in 1947 in response to the death in office of Franklin D. Roosevelt shortly after he was elected to a fourth term. It was to prevent a popular President from being elected for life and stagnating the pool of ideas coming to the office. It is not possible to have an override to this mandate without repealing the 22nd Amendment. Passing a Constitutional Amendment is not an easy thing. Article V of the US Constitution covers it. 3/4ths of the states must ratify the proposed amendment. (Legislators or Constitutional Conventions accepting the amendment by a vote consistent with state law usually a 2/3rds or 3/4ths vote)
The President has a few speeches he must deliver to Congress where he describes the past year and describes what he wants to accomplish in the next year. Impeachment proceedings or removal proceedings is the only time that the President is ever required to answer questions from Congress. I particularly like the Parlamentary Question time concept used in most former British colonies and Great Britian. It allows the Parlament to make the Prime Minister squirm for a bit and have to justify their actions. Sometimes, when the question is off, the Prime Minister can turn the tables on the House of Commons member. They also sometimes say the phrase "The Right Honourable Gentelman" like "The dirty, rotten polecat". I'd love to have Congress grilling time for the President. It would probably give him a little more feedback on his job performance.
Here is a primer for our system of government.
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/
This includes judical commentary and literary commentary including applicable case law which has been used to further define the articles and amendmants.
It may explain why some of us Americans get our knickers in a twist over some policy or law. We have seperation of powers in the US where the checks and balances are there to make sure one branch doesn't get too powerful. Unfourtunately, the Executive branch has been getting away with far too much lately.
As for political parties, imagine two rabid Tasmanian Devils on crack fighting, one marked Democrat and one marked Republican. Pretty much sums up what the political process in the States has become. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 06/13/2003 07:38:18 |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2003 : 09:33:17 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for that, explained a lot.
quote:
As for political parties, imagine two rabid Tasmanian Devils on crack fighting, one marked Democrat and one marked Republican. Pretty much sums up what the political process in the States has become.
We have four parties, the Labor, Liberal, The Australian Democrats and the National Party. The last two account for about 10 - 20% of the vote. The Democrats are not aligned with any party, but their ideals closely match the left wing Labor Party. The National Party are conservative and usually form a coalition with the Liberal Party to get power.
A party or coalition will get into power by holding a majority in the Lower House (House of Reps.), this is where legislation is first debated. For the change to become law, it must be passed in the Upper House. This is where the Democrats are important. With the balance of power they can maintain some sort of sanity. Their main political slogan is “Keep the bastards honest”. Obviously if Labor or Liberal Party holds a majority in the Senate they can pass legislation with much more ease.
A vote for the member in the constituency you live in is a vote in the House of Reps. Each state or territory (8 of them) are allocated a number of seats in the senate. You vote for both houses on Election Day.
quote:
I particularly like the Parlamentary Question time concept used in most former British colonies and Great Britian.
The Queen still is our Head of State Once all the old traditionalists leave for greener pastures in the afterlife, we should be able to wash our hands of this absurd family. We had a referendum in 1999 and the vote went 52/48 in favour of keeping the Monarchy and the Union Jack in our flag. Hopefully it will not be long until we unlatch ourselves from Mother Britain's teat. The milk leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
|
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2003 : 09:55:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
We have four parties, the Labor, Liberal, The Australian Democrats and the National Party.
We also have other parties, all minor, with Libertarian leading the way (they nationally get more votes then all other minor parties combined, and actually hold several hundred positions, all local however). Other parties include the Green party, socialists, independants, reform party, etc.
As you can in the link below Libertarian actually classified as a major party in the state of Washington woo hoo, don't know how they faired in other states as I am sure the definition varies from state to state along with their performance.
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/parties.aspx
Gives a sample of other parties as well. |
|
|
|
tw101356
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2003 : 13:47:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by gezzam
Thanks for that, explained a lot.
We have four parties, the Labor, Liberal, The Australian Democrats and the National Party. The last two account for about 10 - 20% of the vote. The Democrats are not aligned with any party, but their ideals closely match the left wing Labor Party. The National Party are conservative and usually form a coalition with the Liberal Party to get power.
If I recall correctly, your Liberal Party is conservative. Something like this?
Labor - left
Aus. Democrats - left of center
Liberal - right
National - right of Liberal
-- Henry
|
- TW
|
|
|
|
LordofEntropy
Skeptic Friend
USA
85 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2003 : 15:13:53 [Permalink]
|
Our government works somthing like this:
We have the illusion of choice. We only have 2 parties, both are pretty much the same. It is quite difficult to get government election funding, especially for president.
Congress is just a racket for lawyers. It is a bunch of lawyers who sit around and enact knee-jerk laws(to get votes, after something bad happens and gets press, some ass clown says 'There outta be a law' voila more laws) in perpituity. More laws for more lawyers to be hired to challenge, prosecute, or defend against.
Our government is comprised of solely career politicians(primarily lawyers). These are people who care nothing about the people or country they are supposed to serve. They only care about getting more votes to stay in office longer. Who wouldn't? Senators and House of Reps make in the 100k dollar range annually. Airfares, retirement, election costs, medical, parking, assistants, and interns provided by the taxpayers.
There are also the special perks that come from the money loaded lobbyists to help you decide to enact legislation or vote in their favor.In addition they can give themselves raises, cause they are the ones that have to vote on it.
Supreme court judges are not appointed on the basis of fairness and ethics to uphold the Constituition; but to further the political idealogy of the President who nominates them, and who can manage to wiggle through congressional approval. When congress is the same party as the president, this is much easier. |
Entropy just isn't what it used to be.
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2003 : 09:56:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by gezzam
Not being too familiar with the finer details of the U.S. Congress, I have a couple of questions to ask you guys... I have only ever seen George Bush make speeches, punctuated by thunderous applause. Are there times where he has to face congress to explain why certain decisions have been or might be made?
Hi gezzam--
It sounds like part of your question is really if there is ever a time when the President gets grilled in a question-and-response format. Typically, Presidents do have routine dealings with our press where, after a speech, reporters can ask questions either about a) the topic at hand, or b) other important issues that a reporter feels should be addressed.
Sadly, the current President has appeared in few nationally televised conferences. I have been trying for some time to find actual numbers comparing Bush to previous presidents in the television age but have had no luck. However, there are many who report that Geroge W. Bush has appeared in the fewest number among all of these. This, coupled with a largely sheep-like press corps means that the opportunities to see public grillings of the President are now rather few. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2003 : 10:51:33 [Permalink]
|
This is an extremely difficult subject. It's been over 200 years. There are two separate things going on:- What the Constitution (THE law) says and what the original rules were; and
- what is actually being done---after 200+ of political subversion.
Much of the problem is that many people like the way the British-style parliamentary systems do things and they don't like the way our political system was designed.
How far have we drifted? When the very first President left office, his farwell speach warned against the very existence of political factions (IMO, "parties" are included in but are smaller things than "factions").
As to the President appearing before anyone: The Constitution requires him (--let us fervently hope that it's not "her" since that would probably mean  Horrible Hillery --) to occasionally describe the state/status of the Union to the Congress (--we are NOT a federal anything: we are a UNION of equal states---all of whom MUST have equal representation/sufferage in the Senate). It has only been in very recent times that that requirement has become the "State Of The Union" address, made in person before Congress.
As to press-conferences: IMO they should be outlawed for the same reasons that allowed a A. Hitler to rise to power or allowed an FDR to gain election after election (--his nasty little "fireside chats").
Term limits on the President: The only practical way to change the Constitution is to make an ammendment that sounds as if is does almost nothing. (We the People tend to trust the Constitution; we tend to NOT trust politicians.)
The LordofEntropy has some misinformation in said Lord's post. We shouldn't have only two (dominent) parties. Representatives are elected down deep in the "grass" and it should be easy for someone with whatever political-party affiliation to get elected from their "district". It isn't----mostly becuase, IMO, the districts are so VAST. It's widely agreed that the Constitutional Convention considered size of Representation: 1 for every 30,000 was put in as the minimum; but 1 in 40,000 was rejected as the minimum as being too dilute of a representation. Admitedly, if the 1:30000 rule were followed the U.S. House would be 5,000+ strong-----but, then, that's what the Russian Duma is and they seem to do OK. The main argument (HA!!) against a better representation seems to be that the Capital Building (--a nice historical place; with the British burn-marks from the 1814 invasion still maintained--) is too small.  Power-mongers at work! The House wants to like the Senate. Bah!
The Entropic Lord also calls the Congress a "racket for lawyers". It used to be that way but in the past 10-20 years ever more non-lawyers have squeezed out the lawyer crowd. Probably because that in the U.S., lawyers are more dispised than loan-sharks.
Snake is absolutely right: The President is not a very important job---except in War, since he is Commander-in-Chief (--although today he is considered more like a "Politician-in-Chief"). In much of our history (--including the first President: the dude on the one-dollar bill--), we have elected generals to be President----and not just during War. During the 20th Century the practice shifted over to electing professional politicians.
During peacetime, (Article II of the Constitution, "The President", is pretty short), his primary duties are to receive ambassadors----he is, under the Constitution, the actual "Foreign Minister of the U.S.".
Etc. Etc. Etc. Ad nausium. |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2003 : 11:38:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by gezzam
...
The Queen still is our Head of State Once all the old traditionalists leave for greener pastures in the afterlife, we should be able to wash our hands of this absurd family. We had a referendum in 1999 and the vote went 52/48 in favour of keeping the Monarchy and the Union Jack in our flag. Hopefully it will not be long until we unlatch ourselves from Mother Britain's teat. The milk leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
Ignoring, for the moment, that the Osbournes would make a classier royal family than the load of parasitic examples of inbreeding you've currently got, I can see some advantages to having the symbolism of the Head of State attached to a person other than the head of government.
Here in the US, we have them rolled into the same person, and an unfortunate consequence of this is to make it easier to fall into the "saying something bad about the President is disloyal to your country, so shut up and wave yer flag, boy." fallacy, and to make it easier for a President to hide behind the prestige of his office instead of rationally defending his policies like a mensch.
Couple that with a press that's lost the skill of calling the mayor a hyena, with or without adjectives, and you have a recipe for incipient imperial rule growing out of rule by photo-op and sound bite.
When you have the mantle of Head of State safely installed on some clueless, powerless, harmless dodderer, you have an atmosphere where the head of government has much less ability to take cover behind irrational veneration of office.
A system in which the head of government can be addressed as "you bloody stupid cow" in the halls of legislature by an obscure legislator without an eyebrow being raised has something to be said for it.
So get busy and elect Ozzy king, eh?  |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2003 : 11:44:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
As to press-conferences: IMO they should be outlawed for the same reasons that allowed a A. Hitler to rise to power or allowed an FDR to gain election after election (--his nasty little "fireside chats").
What?!  Perhaps you misunderstood-- by press conference, I mean those instances where the President is asked about his policies by the press so that they can pass his answers on to the public. Of course a President's speeches are going to be filled with propoganda and such, but that's not what I'm talking about. When (if?) the next time our President holds a public press conference (and not a softball 'interview' designed for ratings), there should be a lot of questions about accusations of distortion of the facts in regards to Iraq. Of course, our mainstream press corps seems to do little free-thinking these days so it's not likely that he'll ever be directly challenged on such issues.
Having the President answer questions to the public (and not just make speeches on aircraft carries) is an important thing, and I hope that such a thing isn't outlawed! |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 07/01/2003 11:47:10 |
|
|
|
LordofEntropy
Skeptic Friend
USA
85 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2003 : 14:39:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
The LordofEntropy has some misinformation in said Lord's post. We shouldn't have only two (dominent) parties. Representatives are elected down deep in the "grass" and it should be easy for someone with whatever political-party affiliation to get elected from their "district".
The key word is shouldn't. Of course you "can" run under a different party. But when is the last time a serious presidential contender arrived under a party other than Democrat or Republican? Not in a long time, and not for a long time coming either. That is why it is the illusion of choice. You get to choose from Fuckwad 1, or Fucktard 1. |
Entropy just isn't what it used to be.
|
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2003 : 06:54:10 [Permalink]
|
No, I did not misunderstand you, Cuneiformist. I understood what you were saying all too well.
It is true, I admit, that in other countries the head of state is often subject to grilling by the so-called "Fifth Estate"---the slimy power-mongers of the Public Press.
Here in the U.S., however, the President is NOT the "head of state"; but he IS the senior officer in the U.S. Army and Navy. (See Article II of the Constitution.) Even granting interviews (much less a group-grilling) with a senior Commander is a very bad idea----something that we learned all-too-well as long ago as the 1860-65 War when, for example, something told a Union reporter in confidence would, within a day or two, appear in the Richmond, Virginia, newspapers. Very, very ugly.
Let members of the Congress be grilled, perhaps; but NEVER the Commander-in-Chief. |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2003 : 07:17:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by LordofEntropyquote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
The LordofEntropy has some misinformation in said Lord's post. We shouldn't have only two (dominent) parties. Representatives are elected down deep in the "grass" and it should be easy for someone with whatever political-party affiliation to get elected from their "district".
The key word is shouldn't. Of course you "can" run under a different party. But when is the last time a serious presidential contender arrived under a party other than Democrat or Republican? Not in a long time, and not for a long time coming either. That is why it is the illusion of choice. You get to choose from Fuckwad 1, or Fucktard 1.
You're absolutely right: The key word is "shouldn't"----but not taken as "not nice" but, rather, taken as meaning "the result of political subversion of the letter and intent of the Constitution".
Were we to elect representatives on a 1 in 30,000 to 40,000 basis (rather than, say, 1 per half-million) then a prospective representative could WALK the district and TALK person-to-person to each and every voter. NO money needed at all; no political-party affiliation needed---just a good, honest candidate with some good, honest ideas.
As to your hypothetical "serious presidential contender"-----since the electors are elected/selected in the November election along with everyone else (--EXCEPT for the President and Vice-President who are elected by the electors--), how can there be such a thing as a "serious presidential contender"? You could "throw your hat in the ring", maybe, but who could you campaign when the electors who vote for Pres. and Vice-Pres. won't be chosen until November?
The reason that there ARE such things as "serious presidential contenders" is because the entire election process (described in excruciating, hideously boring detail in the Constitution) has been subverted---TWICE OVER!!!- First the electors are told who they MUST vote for. (WOW!! Were it a third-World country instead of the U.S., we would all be crying "FOUL!", "FRAUD", and "Electoral irregularities".)
- Secondly, the TRULY DISGUSTING "winner take all" rule for electors defrauds, DISenfranchises roughly HALF of all the voters. (WOW!! Were it a third-World country....etc.)
You, yourself, are defrauded, LordofEntropy, by believing the subverted system we actually USE is the real, true system as designed by the Founding Fathers. Gross?? Truely, TRUELY! OBSCENELY gross! |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2003 : 08:32:29 [Permalink]
|
Great thread. I learned a TON. Thank you.
I would love to see Bush give more press conferences and to be grilled by congress. He's the least accountable president of modern times.
JMHO: The reason we have only two parties is that the Libertarian and Green parties (as examples) offer ideologies that are not compatible with what most Americans believe. Also, their solutions to problems are generally not practical or acceptable to most of the country. (insert generalization disclaimer here and I acknowledge all exceptions to this rule) I applaud the independent parties' courage and I value in diverse voices in American politics. However, I don't see the Libertarians rising to power anytime soon.
I don't hate the government and I don't have a problem with career politicians. But I do agree with the idea that our political system has become so contentious--and both parties so mistrustful of one another--that the best interests of everyday Americans are not being well-served.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
