quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I'm familiar with the doctrine of "separation of powers" (which I think you'll find is a facet of every democratic system) and I'm also aware that the powers of the executive branch - in practice, if not in any formal capacity - have been expanded to unprecedented levels under the current administration. However, my argument is that no system should permit this sort of exploitation in the first place: when you vest the executive branch with this much power, it is to be expected that there will be individuals who - under the right circumstances - will seek to abuse this power for their own means. Power should be thinly spread in a democratic system so that the potential for corruption is diluted. Apart from expediency, I can't understand how it could possibly be considered beneficial in any political system to grant so much power to any one man. But again, while an indifferent, complicit congress doesn't help matters, it stands to reason that the head of state should not have the power at any time to subvert domestic law - let alone the constitution! In the Australian democracy, for instance, the Prime-Minister has basically no more official power than any other member of parliament: he still dictates party (and therefore, governmental) policy and is therefore central to the legislative process, but his constitutional power is officially no greater than that of the man sitting next to him. While the Westminster system is certainly not without flaw, this sort of scenario (the leader of a nation breaking constitutional law to spy on his own citizens) could not realistically occur here under this system. And the judicial branch (at the highest level, anyway) is appointed by the executive branch! While the president can't get away with appointing just anyone to the Supreme Court (as he found out with Harriet Miers) the fact that he has the power to appoint someone with his own ideological bent into the branch that is meant to exist as a "check" on his power makes absolutely no sense. That he should have the inherent power to, alone, appoint people into such influential positions (and I'm not just talking about SCOTUS judges here - I'm also talking about cabinet members that, in practice, wield huge amounts of power) is a failure of the system and we're just now beginning to see why this failure should be cause for concern. Any political system that facilitates even the nascency of despotism is a flawed one: I believe this to be very much the case with regards to Jeffersonian democracy.

I think the main thing you're underestimating is how many people sadly either support or don't care about what the Bush administration is doing.

Also, the judges are lifetime appointments. There are people on there now who have been nominated by both Republican and Democratic presidents. Bush has only put 2 of the current ones on there, which is why there are a lot of close decisions.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I think the main thing you're underestimating is how many people sadly either support or don't care about what the Bush administration is doing.

No, I fully appreciate the political climate in the US right now. I agree that Bush's transgressions can be traced back, in part, to an apathetic congress or to a similarly apathetic (or perhaps underinformed...?) populace. My point, however, was that under a system where the balance of power was spread more evenly (that is to say, with less power vested in the executive branch) this abuse of power could not have occurred. The intentions of Bush or the idiocy of those who support these intentions shouldn't matter: the system itself should protect against such abuses.

quote:

Also, the judges are lifetime appointments. There are people on there now who have been nominated by both Republican and Democratic presidents. Bush has only put 2 of the current ones on there, which is why there are a lot of close decisions.

Presuming each party spends an equal amount of time in power over the period of a couple of decades, the sitting president might only need to make one or two appointments to the supreme court during his time in power to tilt the ideological balance of the court in his favour. Considering that the judicial branch exists as the major "check" on executive power under the US system, it makes no sense - in a supposed system of "checks and balances" - for the executive to be able to influence its composition so directly.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I think the main thing you're underestimating is how many people sadly either support or don't care about what the Bush administration is doing. Also, the judges are lifetime appointments. There are people on there now who have been nominated by both Republican and Democratic presidents. Bush has only put 2 of the current ones on there, which is why there are a lot of close decisions.

Q: What do you think we can do about ignorance and apathy in America?
A: I don't know and I don't care.

That, sadly, is the state of affairs.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I don't want to derail this thread into the abject bashing of American democracy, but I think this is one of those problems that has been brought about directly by the fact that the American democratic system is one of the oldest in the world and that it really hasn't changed much in that time.

While the system's age is definitely the concrete problem, I think that the utter brilliance of it, when it was first put into place, is the actual problem. The culture of uncritical awe, which most US citizens seem to meet their governance system with, is keeping people from questioning the system and - gasp - maybe even become inspired by developments that have taken place in the rest of the world in the two hundred years. As an example, I saw some member of congress, who chaired the 911-commission, on the Daily Show. At one point he was talking about how Bush had met with him and his colleagues in the oval office and answered questions. The representive commented this, with what appeared to be a lumb in his throat, as "Nowhere else in the world you could have the same situation: A leader of a country sitting down with ordinary citizens to answer their questions. Nowhere else in the world!". And of course the audience was applauding wildly. Besides being concerned that a professional politician could be so ill-informed, I was thinking "There's no helping these guys". How can you even begin to reform a system when you precieve it as flawless?

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp i really doubt the NSA gives two shit what some judge orders them to do.

Correct.

I am also scared.