Check out some similar questions!

ma0641 · Oct 30, 2011, 05:59 PM

Paraclete " It doesn't sound like a democracy" That's because the United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10). In some case we are a democracy, voting on local matters directly, e.g. local option sales taxes, liquor by the drink etc.

paraclete · Oct 30, 2011, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by ma0641

Paraclete " It doesn't sound like a democracy" Thats because the United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10). In some case we are a democracy, voting on local matters directly, e.g. local option sales taxes, liquor by the drink etc.

Interesting definion there, you may find then that Switzerland is a long standing democracy, but there are other forms of representative government other than a republic which is basically a form of government where there is an elected monarch.

The framers of your constitution were indeed fearful of many things including their own countrymen. In the light of today we cannot understand fully what they were attempting to achieve other than a nation that would not be subject to the whim of monarch or the whim of the majority. It appears they failed

talaniman · Oct 30, 2011, 08:29 PM

Many nations on the earth would be glad to have our failures I bet. I wouldn't judge from the outside looking in, especially since history already has documented that we eventually get it together, and solve our problems. No doubt we will again. If China bends your arm too much, call us.

Shared power and responsibility is hardly a monarchy.

paraclete · Oct 30, 2011, 09:47 PM

Tal as you say, from the outside, what is the difference between a monarch and an executive who is able to pass legislation without a vote? Not even in our democracy would our executive attempt such a thing, but then I suggest our process may be a little more open than yours despite the media coverage.

tomder55 · Oct 31, 2011, 04:05 AM

The use of executive orders has become increasingly abusive. The checks and balances only work if the Legislative branch chooses to exercise it's authority.
However ,for some time now ,the Legislative branch has chosen to defer to either the executive ,to bureaucrats ,or to ad-hoc super committees or 'gangs of 14 'instead of performing their constitutionally madated function.

In my view the much of the problem could be addressed with term limits .

I fully agree with ma0641 about 'democracy' . The Senate was constructed to represent the states ;and to temper the excesses of a legislative body constructed to act according to the whims and passions of popular will.

twinkiedooter · Oct 31, 2011, 11:19 AM

Obama is going to solve all our problems by appointing himself King shortly. He can't handle this government as it is so he's going to "show" us all he can. King or dictator shortly. He can hardly wait.

Just about every state is now recinding his insane universal health care legislation that took up all the previous time in the House and Senate last year to "force through". If some senators were not bought off they would still be voting on that stupid law to this day.

His grandstand ploy to get all troops out of Iraq by year's end is nothing but a ploy to send those same troops to Afganistan or to be used to invade Iran. We need more troops in Afganistan to guard the poppy fields!!

talaniman · Oct 31, 2011, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by paraclete

Tal as you say, from the outside, what is the difference between a monarch and an executive who is able to pass legislation without a vote? Not even in our democracy would our executive attempt such a thing, but then I suggest our process may be a little more open than yours despite the media coverage.

Our process is written, and there are checks and balances in place,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executi...(United_States),

Congress may overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it[9] or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.[10]

So you see, they can talk to the press, or do something about those executive orders, if they so choose. They don't just have to whine or complain.

How much more transparent did you want?

paraclete · Oct 31, 2011, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

So you see, they can talk to the press, or do something about those executive orders, if they so choose. They don't just have to whine or complain.

How much more transparent did you want?

I think you miss the point of the whole process. If your president has the power to legislate by executive order he doesn't need a legislature. Look, we have a similar process called regulation where a bill in simple form is passed with a whole lot of attached unwritten regulation which the parliament may recind by failing to accept within a certain period. The reality is they rarely even look at it, we call it government by bureaucracy. I suspect your executive order process is similar, your legislature can recind the order but rarely does.

What you have is a system of negative government relying on enough people to be against something to stop it

talaniman · Oct 31, 2011, 02:35 PM

But Clete, that's not negative government, that's weighting the options, and selecting the appropriate action. It's a part of the process. Now how, and how well that's works you can debate, but the opposition has to reach a consensus, and that's up to them. The executive order is but another tool of government, and not just the President has this tool, states have them also.

paraclete · Oct 31, 2011, 02:55 PM

What then is the point of representative government?

talaniman · Oct 31, 2011, 03:09 PM

If you don't like the job your servants do on your behalf, you fire them. That's why we have elections every two years.

More diversity in the menu would be nice.

paraclete · Oct 31, 2011, 03:24 PM

Which menu is that? It's been a slow month and we have talked all the issues through and through

Personally I waiting for the next spill in the aussie leadership

talaniman · Oct 31, 2011, 03:35 PM

I have to be honest, since the world series is over, my next big thing is the Super Bowl, and getting the grand kids some video games!

paraclete · Oct 31, 2011, 03:51 PM

Well the football season is over here and next is the cricket season and that has become a bore, so I guess I will just have to sit in the sun and contemplate my navel.

What do you think of that fellow Khan in Pakistan telling the US he will help you to leave Afghanistan

talaniman · Oct 31, 2011, 04:34 PM

I don't think of him at all. I have the republican primary to keep me entertained while I wait for the next game, search for videos, or wonder how my navel has been doing since I last saw it.

paraclete · Oct 31, 2011, 05:06 PM

Oh you should Tal, he is interesting, he is rallying the youth, we may yet see an Occupy Islamabad movement to make not the capitalists but the politicians honest. Now if you just had politicians like him, eh? What a difference it would make.

He just had a meeting with 500,000, blocked the roads, I love to see a popular people movement arise

tomder55 · Nov 1, 2011, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by paraclete

Well the football season is over here and next is the cricket season and that has become a bore, so I guess I will just have to sit in the sun and contemplate my navel.

What do you think of that fellow Khan in Pakistan telling the US he will help you to leave Afghanistan

The last popular Paki leader was Benazir Bhutto.

Imran Khan is a former cricket player... Hope his former skill serves him when it's time to duck.

talaniman · Nov 1, 2011, 09:49 AM

Remains to be seen if the "parents" are patient with the youth, or strict, and rigid with them.

paraclete · Nov 1, 2011, 02:23 PM

Of course they are strict and rigid Tal, it is an islamic society, but you know how it is with the unemployed in any place as your own youth demonstrate.

Khan is a charismatic figure with more behind him than a successful cricketing career. He talks a lot of sense. He also thinks the Taliban are primitive. I don't think he will be out for a duck
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...?newsfeed=true