Jump to content

Politics US Edition Volume II


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

He's the head of state. He represents every single American.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

can't find "head of state" anywhere.

we do not have a genuine head of state here in the USA. we got a democratic republic and the President, 'ccording to article ii, is having powers largely limited to foreign affairs.

however, Congress has delegated power to the Presidency. the thing is, Congress can take such powers back, not that it will ever happen.

IF the federal government has authority over the homeless in various states, such authority is limited and it is derived through Article I powers.

is much misunderstanding 'bout the actual role and power o' the US President. electoral college makes far more sense if one is understanding what the President is 'posed to be.

HA! Good Fun!

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

He's the head of state. He represents every single American. He makes decisions that affect all of them, and disproportionately affect the least powerful, like homeless people.

Sorry buddy I’m represented by a guy name David Kustoff. Nice fella, maybe not the brightest candle in the cathedral but not bad. The President of the United States is just the head of the executive branch of the government. He’s not what you would call a head of state or any kind of representative of the people.

 

Edit: Grom beat me to it

Edited by Guard Dog

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

noun

the person who holds the highest position in a national government:

It’s arguable that he does not. He holds the highest position in one branch of three that are coequal. Theoretically.

Now when it comes to dealing with foreign powers the president is definitely the face of the United States. The executive is also the singular agent of the country in matters of foreign policy. But that’s not quite the same thing as what you were thinking

Edited by Guard Dog

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

noun

the person who holds the highest position in a national government:

correct, which is why we said we don't have such here in the USA. the highest position in our fed government is Congress, not the President, and is no single leader o' Congress such as is found in parliamentary systems.

as we said, is a widespread misunderstanding 'bout our president.

HA! Good Fun! 

ps "coequal branches" is not how the founders saw it. hamilton in the federalist papers explicit noted the judiciary were the weakest o' the three branches and were strong implied that the executive were weaker than Congress. 

gotta think back to 1787 and how different were the fed government. in 1789(?) President washington tried to hire a handful o' night watchmen to guard the treasury building in philadelphia. this unilateral act set off a Constitutional crisis.

Edited by Gromnir

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

noun

the person who holds the highest position in a national government:

If you used that on a test to describe the President of the US, I would give you half credit, and that would be a gift. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Biden's cabinet is starting to take shape. Completely orthodox neoliberal picks, with the possible exception of John Kerry in a specific climate change position.

Supposedly Defense Secretary will also be a completely standard neoliberal warhawk from the same think tank neoliberal warhawk Secretary of State nominee Blinken was at during the Trump term to complement neoliberal warhawk VP Harris. Because what the US electorate really wants is another 4 years of moronic and pointless military adventurism (with maybe a few brighter spots, like reinstating the JCPOA. Though even there they will no doubt try to 'renegotiate' it). The only speedbump is that Biden is considerably less of a neoliberal warhawk than his picks are.

  • Gasp! 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically Kim Jong-Un isn't the head of state in the DPRK, but you'd be kind of stretching it to say he didn't occupy the big seat of power. Obviously the President of the US isn't equivalent to Kim's position as the non-technically-head-of-state, but PotUS being the singular most powerful position an individual can occupy seems to be uncontroversial. In this vein wanting a President to have been homeless, worked a minimum wage job for 10 years, or drowned in student debt isn't that different than wanting them to have been a soldier or gotten a doctorate if you believe such experience is a bulwark to doing dumb or bad stuff.

"I am the expert, asshat." - Hurlshot

"You need to be careful, lest I write another ten page essay on mythology and how it relates to Sailor Moon." - majestic

"I won't say what just in case KaineParker is reading" - Bartimaeus

"Oh no! Is there super secret ending as well? I don’t care." - Wormerine

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Looks like Biden's cabinet is starting to take shape. Completely orthodox neoliberal picks, with the possible exception of John Kerry in a specific climate change position.

Supposedly Defense Secretary will also be a completely standard neoliberal warhawk from the same think tank neoliberal warhawk Secretary of State nominee Blinken was at during the Trump term to complement neoliberal warhawk VP Harris. Because what the US electorate really wants is another 4 years of moronic and pointless military adventurism (with maybe a few brighter spots, like reinstating the JCPOA. Though even there they will no doubt try to 'renegotiate' it). The only speedbump is that Biden is considerably less of a neoliberal warhawk than his picks are.

I mean, we all knew that not much is going to change.

At this point, the only thing I'm hoping for is less daily Trump news (and it seems to be working out so far).

  • Hmmm 1

"only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die."

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

It’s arguable that he does not. He holds the highest position in one branch of three that are coequal. Theoretically.

Now when it comes to dealing with foreign powers the president is definitely the face of the United States. The executive is also the singular agent of the country in matters of foreign policy. But that’s not quite the same thing as what you were thinking

Huh, didn't know that. What're the other two branches?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Huh, didn't know that. What're the other two branches?

Legislative (congress)

Executive (president, vp, cabinet, federal agencies)

Judicial (Supreme court, other fed courts)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chairchucker said:

noun

the person who holds the highest position in a national government:

That isn't very accurate definition of head of state, considering how big sunk of head is states in world are just figure heads, like European monarchs. Especially Queen Elizabeth who is head of state also in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and United Kingdom without having position in their governments.

Also in many countries where president is official head of state, president does not have any or minor governmental power like for example Germany, Finland, Albanian, Armenia, Austria, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Dominica, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Malta, Moldova, Nepal, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Portugal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine and Vanuatu.

Countries where head of state has major governmental powers are in minority in number, but not necessarily in influence they hold in world

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, even if I don't agree with Blinken on much at all he could scarcely be worse than Pompeo if he actively tried to.

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

That isn't very accurate definition of head of state, considering how big sunk of head is states in world are just figure heads, like European monarchs. Especially Queen Elizabeth who is head of state also in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and United Kingdom without having position in their governments.

Also in many countries where president is official head of state, president does not have any or minor governmental power like for example Germany, Finland, Albanian, Armenia, Austria, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Dominica, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Malta, Moldova, Nepal, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Portugal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine and Vanuatu.

Countries where head of state has major governmental powers are in minority in number, but not necessarily in influence they hold in world

Theoretically though all Euro monarchs grant Assent to laws still made in their name. There is a difference (potentially, they can be the same person) between Head of State and Head of Government, since HoS can be a non political position but HoG by definition is political.

I'd actually suspect that Executive Presidencies as governmental type are an absolute majority rather than minority. Almost all of Africa, South America and Central America is Exec Presidencies, and most of Asia. There are a few absolute monarchies, Iran, some constitutional monarchies and a decent number of non executive presidential models especially where constitutional monarchies have been replaced in Europe or Commonwealth but even in the Commonwealth itself there are a lot of Executive Presidencies because of Africa. The French colonial model in contrast has resulted almost entirely in Executive Presidencies (only exception I can think of is Cambodia). Though there is a lot of difference in practice between the Executive Presidency as seen in, say, Syria and one seen in, say, South Korea there's also a lot of difference between the constitutional monarchy in Thailand as opposed to New Zealand.

Executive Presidencies are definitely rare in Europe though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Amentep said:

Legislative (congress)

Executive (president, vp, cabinet, federal agencies)

Judicial (Supreme court, other fed courts)

"federal agencies" is a bit misleading but only by a small degree. example: the CBO is a federal agency, but is not executive branch. Congress and the Judiciary include w/i the scope o' their authority federal agencies, although the number o' such agencies and the personnel beholden to Congress and Courts is miniscule compared to executive branch agencies. 

that said, am suspecting almost nobody read our article link.

powers o' the President:

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

"The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

doesn't sound particular powerful, does it? the other powers o' the President is legislative in origin and scope or they is resulting simple from the fact the President is the most visible member o' the national government.

is also worth nothing that as often as not in US history, POTUS has not been the leader o' the political party to which the President belongs. 

POTUS is not a head o' state in any legal sense, but when the leader o' the dominant political party holds the office o' the President and a complicit Congress and Judiciary enables the chief executive at every turn, then the result is a functional head of state. however, is not the office itself which provides the powers o' a head of state.

HA! Good Fun!

  • Like 2

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

"federal agencies" is a bit misleading but only by a small degree. example: the CBO is a federal agency, but is not executive branch. Congress and the Judiciary include w/i the scope o' their authority federal agencies, although the number o' such agencies and the personnel beholden to Congress and Courts is miniscule compared to executive branch agencies. 

Yeah. I thought when I wrote it that I should have qualified it with a 'most' or something, but then decided not to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chairchucker said:

Yo, my bad for misdefining (apparently this isn't a word? whatevs) the office of President. Final sentence was the important one anyway, tho.

final sentence is no more true for a President than a SCOTUS Justice... and such a misunderstanding only highlights @Guard Dog observation 'bout local representatives. homeless in nashville and memphis is far less affected by trump decisions than by state and local elected officials.

seems our brand o' federalism here in the USA is also gross misunderstood.

...

@Hurlshot has his work cut out for him.

HA! Good Fun!

ps amusing example which am guessing won't prove the point, but the county we live in, and three of four adjacent counties, has sheriffs who has public stated they is not gonna enforce the newish CA state covid-curfew. however, is multiple municipalities within those counties where local police will be enforcing the curfew albeit to varying degrees. 

Edited by Gromnir

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Maybe the way Trump exerted his influence on other people - like bullying governors into undoing mask mandates or whatever - has just got us internationals all confused.

trump, much like obama, has taken control over his party and trump has far less restraint than his predecessor in wielding his popularity to compel actions he wants taken. if you are a red state governor where trump is popular, then you need trump support to get elected. is not a function o' the office, but rather party politics.

were similar with obama, but the degree and nature o' the pressure applied by each President were different.

less frequent but more sinister, trump did functional hold a few blue state governors hostage during the recent covid crisis. if CA or NY wanted ppe or testing resources, the governor were told by wh staff that the president would need hear nice words from the governor. public displays o' approval were demanded in exchange for supplies during a pandemic?

trump is so far outside the norm.

good riddance.

Edited by Gromnir

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lexx said:

I mean, we all knew that not much is going to change.

 

No we dont know that at all, many things can change globally under Biden as the US has such an impact  around Geopolitics and the US foreign and domestic policies are directly influenced by the president. 

We have been through 4 years of the most disruptive era, due to  US politics,  in living memory of exactly the opposite of what you suggesting ...." things can  change and they do " if the US president wants to change things 

Zora's cynicism  doesn't surprise me at all but try not to believe it  as its demonstrably and patently untrue 

 

 

Edited by BruceVC

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, one thing I never really understood - America has such a thing for going against dictators in other (primarily middle eastern, hurr durr) countries, but everytime I hear about what the american president is apparently able to do, I'm wondering if he isn't a dictator himself.

Reminds me of when the world was all QQ about Erdogan getting himself more power, all the while the american president can just swing his duck around in whatever ways he likes and apparently nobody can do anything against it. Feels kinda hypocritical to me.

Edited by Lexx
  • Thanks 1

"only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Gorth locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...