Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Supreme Court, All Right or All Wrong? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Farmboy who wrote (2739)	2/11/2012 1:20:38 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3029

Farmboy, IMO one of the greatest things about opinions is that so long as you own it, it can almost never be wrong. <GGG> You're right in that the Constitution provides for a balancing of power among the three branches. If the Congress were as jealous of its power as the Executive, things would be different. But, since Jefferson, the Executive Branch has grabbed for power and authority, always adding to the mantle, almost never releasing it. The Legislative Branch, like almost any committee, tries to bury its authority in anonymity. Just look at what some Presidents have been able to do, and get away with it: Lincoln, on only his own authority, suspends major Constitutional protections, and dictates that private property is subject to the Government, without protection of the courts. Wilson subjects the US to foreign dictates, and ignores Congressional protests. We needn't even get started on FDR, there are books about that. Numerous presidents have committed the country to wars without Congressional permission, in spite of Constitutional provisions to the contrary. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more examples. Had these things happened in a Parlimentary system, legislators would fume and fuss, and hold a confidence vote. If the PM were to lose that vote, there'd be a new PM and a new colition to run things. If it's true that a government operates only with the consent of the governed, then a parlimentary system comes much closer to that ideal than our system, where the President starts with all the powers absorbed by his predecessors, and then tries to continually add more. Please don't misunderstand my point -- I'm not saying that our Constitution is wrong or bad. Clearly, it has worked pretty damn well for us. But, if our history had been different, it would be possible for a presidential strongman to take over everything and become a dictator. Just look at the history of Mexico, or even Iraq and Uganda. That's what determined dictators can do to a presidency. I can't think of any prime ministers who have been able to aggrandize power like that. Parliamentary governments might be overthrown, but they don't often become dictatorial. So, when it comes to formerly autocratically controlled governments, a parliament might be the best way to go. Which is why, since at least WWII, every government we've helped form has been based on that concept.