poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Do they have anything similar or comparable?nino_savatte said:
How does US politics work?
- Thread starter bruise
- Start date
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
poster342002 said:
Not as far as I know. There's the weekly press conference but there is no comparable Q&A session as we get here.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
The President rarely addresses Congress - State of the Union address at New Year, when he's asking for permission to go to war and a few others.
The Whitehouse and the Pres can be called before the various congressional committees over past actions but there isn't a weekly Q&A in Congress or the Senate - and neither should there be, which is part of the point of having 3 clearly defined branches of government.
The reason the checks and balances are currently out of whack is largely down to the GOP having had control of the Presidency and Congress and the SC (effectively in the SCs case since theoretically it's non-partisan but in practice you get conservative and liberal justices), and the Dems being in the positon of not having had a justice die on Bill Clinton's watch, or been able to hold on to either one of the two Congresses for more than 4 years - which is actually a fairly unique thing in US politics since the historical pattern until Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' (targeting conservative democrats in the South) was that the people would vote one way for the Presidency and the other for at least one of the Houses.
The Whitehouse and the Pres can be called before the various congressional committees over past actions but there isn't a weekly Q&A in Congress or the Senate - and neither should there be, which is part of the point of having 3 clearly defined branches of government.
The reason the checks and balances are currently out of whack is largely down to the GOP having had control of the Presidency and Congress and the SC (effectively in the SCs case since theoretically it's non-partisan but in practice you get conservative and liberal justices), and the Dems being in the positon of not having had a justice die on Bill Clinton's watch, or been able to hold on to either one of the two Congresses for more than 4 years - which is actually a fairly unique thing in US politics since the historical pattern until Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' (targeting conservative democrats in the South) was that the people would vote one way for the Presidency and the other for at least one of the Houses.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
belboid said:
It's kinda be like having the Queen sitting in Paliament and having 'Monarch's Questions'.
I always remembered how it worked by seeing the Executive as being responsible for strategy, Foreign policy, 'frame of mind' etc, and the congress as the legalists - hence 'the president proposes, congress disposes'
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
belboid said:
True.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Isn't the USA's office of "Secretary of State" their nearest equivelent to a positon of Prime Minister? Do they regularly answer questiosn in congress?kyser_soze said:
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Does he/she also fullfill the equivalent role of our Speaker of the House of Commons? Or is more of a case that the speaker "speaks for the majority of the house" (which would seem more like a traditional Prime Minister-type role)?belboid said:
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
That does sound quite similar to a PM, doesn't it? In that case, does the Speaker have a regular Q&A session in congress?belboid said:
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
The VP is also the Speaker of the Senate.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Y'know, it don't work too well any more.
It's a good constitution. I think it's brilliant, frankly. It takes an ideology to weave a Nation out of many ethnicities and beliefs, and a flat declaration of the self-evidence of democratic rights is a potent ideology alright. My kind of ideology. Not that saying I'm wild about militaristic nationalism or anything. And it's clear things are far from functional in the 109th Congress ...
It's a good constitution. I think it's brilliant, frankly. It takes an ideology to weave a Nation out of many ethnicities and beliefs, and a flat declaration of the self-evidence of democratic rights is a potent ideology alright. My kind of ideology. Not that saying I'm wild about militaristic nationalism or anything. And it's clear things are far from functional in the 109th Congress ...
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
danny la rouge said:
voters are voters you don't register as a democrat voter or a republican voter, they can join both parties if they wish, pretty sure there's nothing to stop them, doubt that too many people do it, but it can if enough people register for the primaries mean a weaker candidate faces your candidate in the election
poster342002 said:
the president is rarely in the senate/congress, except when he/she makes the state of the union speech
the vice president is the executive's representative in congress
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Is that comparable to the Queen's annual state opening of parliament?marty21 said:
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Doubtless (marty21 said:
), but does it fulfill the same offical role - an announcemnt to the legislature by the Head of State regarding the government's forthcoming programme for the year?thanks, zion, for the informative answer
that comparison of the PM with the Pres was the other thing i was going to bring up
i know Tone has to visit the H of C weekly, and there are sort-of requirements to present stuff to the house first - however, that said (and you he can just face down most of that) he's basically an elected dictator, isn't he?
does the Pres appoint all the key positions, plus hold party patronage etc in the same way?
if Kyser and others are trying to compare the Pres to the (basically powerless) monarch, why does the Pres apparently have so much power? or is that just an illusion we have over here?
that comparison of the PM with the Pres was the other thing i was going to bring up
i know Tone has to visit the H of C weekly, and there are sort-of requirements to present stuff to the house first - however, that said (and you he can just face down most of that) he's basically an elected dictator, isn't he?
does the Pres appoint all the key positions, plus hold party patronage etc in the same way?
if Kyser and others are trying to compare the Pres to the (basically powerless) monarch, why does the Pres apparently have so much power? or is that just an illusion we have over here?
Nino_savatte,
I don't think you're lying. It would be valuable to me in my work to know exactly what the law says.
As far as I know, Democrats receive substantial funds from trade unions. Several political candidates I have known personally have had substantial union support.
Belboid,
I guess you mean the Speaker of the House of Representatives, currently Republican Dennis Hastert and shortly to be Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi. But truthfully that analogy would only work if the Commons and Lords were truly independent of one another. The Prime Minister has no equivalent in the US because the PM combines executive and legislative powers.
The Speaker is responsible for marshalling his or her party's legislation through the House, and in that sense is more analogous to a chief whip. There are no regular Speaker Q&As. Both the House and the Senate introduce, scrutinize and ratify legislation.
Poster,
More or less, yes.
I don't think you're lying. It would be valuable to me in my work to know exactly what the law says.
As far as I know, Democrats receive substantial funds from trade unions. Several political candidates I have known personally have had substantial union support.
Belboid,
I guess you mean the Speaker of the House of Representatives, currently Republican Dennis Hastert and shortly to be Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi. But truthfully that analogy would only work if the Commons and Lords were truly independent of one another. The Prime Minister has no equivalent in the US because the PM combines executive and legislative powers.
The Speaker is responsible for marshalling his or her party's legislation through the House, and in that sense is more analogous to a chief whip. There are no regular Speaker Q&As. Both the House and the Senate introduce, scrutinize and ratify legislation.
Poster,
More or less, yes.
Bruise,
This is a really interesting question, which I'll answer based on having been a politically active long-term resident of both countries in succession.
The way that British English uses the word "presidential" is deeply misleading. "Presidential" has come to mean something like "dictatorial". The reason for this lies in the fact that the US Presidency has come to exercise a pretty free hand when it comes to foreign policy. That in itself (in my opinion) violates the US's founding documents, which require a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind" and require Congress to have the power to declare war. Be that as it may, this means that foreign countries experience the US Presidency as being pretty unconstrained with respect to them, and therefore link the Presidency with dictatorial power.
However, the powers of a US President, especially within the United States, are in reality much less than the powers of a British Prime Minister within the United Kingdom. Let's compare:
The British prime minister sets the legislative agenda
The American Speaker of the House and Vice-President and the majority leaders in fifty states set the American legislative agenda
The British prime minister hires and fires within the parliamentary party
The American President hires his cabinet ministers who are often not party operatives, who may be of a different party altogether, and who do not hold elected office. The Speaker of the House and the Vice-President and the majority leaders in fifty states hire and fire within the parliamentary party.
The British prime minister's powers are not defined in law
The American President's powers are rigidly and clearly defined in the Constitution and by successive rulings of the Supreme Court
The British prime minister helps to select candidates for public office
The American voters elect their candidates for public office via primaries
The British prime minister is very seldom overruled by the Law Lords
The American president is often overruled by the Supreme Court, even at a time like now when seven of nine Justices were appointed under Republican presidencies
The British prime minister can pass any legislation he wants provided he maintains a majority
The American president suggests legislation to the leaders of Congress, who frequently revise it and negotiate over it at great length
The President only has patronage power over the members of his cabinet, ambassadors and federal judgeships
The Prime Minister, in addition, has the equivalent of the power to nominate the members of the Senate
In a broader sense, the President embodies some of the reverence that people in Britain would feel towards an elected monarch. Americans are often, particularly at the start of a presidential term, reluctant to criticize someone who has been elected to represent the nation. It is only now that the President's credibility is shot to pieces that real vigorous criticism of him is emerging in the press.
This is a really interesting question, which I'll answer based on having been a politically active long-term resident of both countries in succession.
The way that British English uses the word "presidential" is deeply misleading. "Presidential" has come to mean something like "dictatorial". The reason for this lies in the fact that the US Presidency has come to exercise a pretty free hand when it comes to foreign policy. That in itself (in my opinion) violates the US's founding documents, which require a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind" and require Congress to have the power to declare war. Be that as it may, this means that foreign countries experience the US Presidency as being pretty unconstrained with respect to them, and therefore link the Presidency with dictatorial power.
However, the powers of a US President, especially within the United States, are in reality much less than the powers of a British Prime Minister within the United Kingdom. Let's compare:
The British prime minister sets the legislative agenda
The American Speaker of the House and Vice-President and the majority leaders in fifty states set the American legislative agenda
The British prime minister hires and fires within the parliamentary party
The American President hires his cabinet ministers who are often not party operatives, who may be of a different party altogether, and who do not hold elected office. The Speaker of the House and the Vice-President and the majority leaders in fifty states hire and fire within the parliamentary party.
The British prime minister's powers are not defined in law
The American President's powers are rigidly and clearly defined in the Constitution and by successive rulings of the Supreme Court
The British prime minister helps to select candidates for public office
The American voters elect their candidates for public office via primaries
The British prime minister is very seldom overruled by the Law Lords
The American president is often overruled by the Supreme Court, even at a time like now when seven of nine Justices were appointed under Republican presidencies
The British prime minister can pass any legislation he wants provided he maintains a majority
The American president suggests legislation to the leaders of Congress, who frequently revise it and negotiate over it at great length
The President only has patronage power over the members of his cabinet, ambassadors and federal judgeships
The Prime Minister, in addition, has the equivalent of the power to nominate the members of the Senate
In a broader sense, the President embodies some of the reverence that people in Britain would feel towards an elected monarch. Americans are often, particularly at the start of a presidential term, reluctant to criticize someone who has been elected to represent the nation. It is only now that the President's credibility is shot to pieces that real vigorous criticism of him is emerging in the press.
Implications of the midterms
THE SENATE
Since the control of the Senate is likely to only be very marginally Republican, the Republican senate leader (Bill Frist) will have to reach out to Democrats to be confident of getting legislation passed. Moderate Republicans and Democrats (Snowe, Collins, Specter, Chafee if re-elected, Nelson) will be very powerful within the Senate, because how they vote will determine what passes and what doesn't. Therefore bills coming out of the Senate will moderate sharply.
THE HOUSE
The House currently has a substantial Republican majority, and so has passed some pretty repellent bills over the last twelve years. However, it looks like the Democrats will retake the House, so whatever comes out will typically be a Democratic-sponsored bill.
This means that the midterms will likely result in a Congress that, instead of producing bills that compromise between a radically Republican House and a moderately Republican Senate, will produce bills that compromise between a very moderately Republican Senate and a Democratic House, and that will therefore be likely to be moderately Democratic.
The compromise bill then heads to the President.
THE PRESIDENT
The President can veto any bill he likes. However, it is customarily a tool of great power that is wielded rarely. What is commonly used is the threat of a veto. No party will have a veto-proof majority in either House, so they cannot ignore this threat. They will therefore be likely to shape their legislation so that it will be likely to not be vetoed. This will exert a moderating influence, so that Congress's moderately Democratic bills will become very moderately Democratic.
President Bush differs from his predecessors, in that he has much more commonly resorted to the use of "signing statements" rather than vetoes. These "signing statements", of doubtful constitutionality, typically assert that in his implementation of the laws passed by Congress he will choose not to obey those parts that seek to constrain his executive authority, which his administration argues is inherent in Article II of the Constitution (edited and reprinted below). He has typically exercised this power to assert the ability to pursue whatever action he thinks fit with respect to the "war on terror", including warrantless wiretapping and torture *cough* *sorry* *I mean "coercive interrogation* *cough* *you can stop waterboarding me now*.
While the overall legislation will therefore shift somewhat from being Republican to being very moderately Democratic, the real action will lie in the congressional committees. Committee chairs, who in the House will be Democratic, can initiate hearings into what...ever...they...want. So they will be able to hold the administration finally somewhat accountable for their lies, their torture, their environmental damage, and their wholesale screwing of the poor. Impeachment of the President will remain out of reach, because there will not be a majority in the Senate that will allow it, but censure and accountability will become possible in a way they weren't before.
THE SENATE
Since the control of the Senate is likely to only be very marginally Republican, the Republican senate leader (Bill Frist) will have to reach out to Democrats to be confident of getting legislation passed. Moderate Republicans and Democrats (Snowe, Collins, Specter, Chafee if re-elected, Nelson) will be very powerful within the Senate, because how they vote will determine what passes and what doesn't. Therefore bills coming out of the Senate will moderate sharply.
THE HOUSE
The House currently has a substantial Republican majority, and so has passed some pretty repellent bills over the last twelve years. However, it looks like the Democrats will retake the House, so whatever comes out will typically be a Democratic-sponsored bill.
This means that the midterms will likely result in a Congress that, instead of producing bills that compromise between a radically Republican House and a moderately Republican Senate, will produce bills that compromise between a very moderately Republican Senate and a Democratic House, and that will therefore be likely to be moderately Democratic.
The compromise bill then heads to the President.
THE PRESIDENT
The President can veto any bill he likes. However, it is customarily a tool of great power that is wielded rarely. What is commonly used is the threat of a veto. No party will have a veto-proof majority in either House, so they cannot ignore this threat. They will therefore be likely to shape their legislation so that it will be likely to not be vetoed. This will exert a moderating influence, so that Congress's moderately Democratic bills will become very moderately Democratic.
President Bush differs from his predecessors, in that he has much more commonly resorted to the use of "signing statements" rather than vetoes. These "signing statements", of doubtful constitutionality, typically assert that in his implementation of the laws passed by Congress he will choose not to obey those parts that seek to constrain his executive authority, which his administration argues is inherent in Article II of the Constitution (edited and reprinted below). He has typically exercised this power to assert the ability to pursue whatever action he thinks fit with respect to the "war on terror", including warrantless wiretapping and torture *cough* *sorry* *I mean "coercive interrogation* *cough* *you can stop waterboarding me now*.
While the overall legislation will therefore shift somewhat from being Republican to being very moderately Democratic, the real action will lie in the congressional committees. Committee chairs, who in the House will be Democratic, can initiate hearings into what...ever...they...want. So they will be able to hold the administration finally somewhat accountable for their lies, their torture, their environmental damage, and their wholesale screwing of the poor. Impeachment of the President will remain out of reach, because there will not be a majority in the Senate that will allow it, but censure and accountability will become possible in a way they weren't before.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Lord hailsham famously described Britains electoral system as an 'elected dictatorship'. With a supine government and decent majority a prime minister can get away with what they liike. Witness both Blair & Thatcher. A purely ceremonial Head of State removes one level of checks & balances, as does having an overwhelmingly legalistic secnd chamber (not to mention a totally supine Parliament of course).bruise said:
FruitandNut
New Member
Ah, but at the end of the day, isn't it 'paronage' and 'the power of nightmares' that oils and greases the political wheels to a degree over 'here', but even more so over 'there'?
Similar threads
