[lit-ideas] Re: Giving Thanksgiving/Adorno and TAP
- From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:37:19 -0800
Omar wrote
I mean, I would think that what distinguishes an authoritatian
presidential system like the one in the US from dictatorship is the
fact that the US president rules with the consent of at
least the majority of the populace. If this circumstance were removed,
it would be a dictatorship then. Conversely, if Saddam Hussain had
been genuinely elected by the majority of Iraqis, he would not then
have been a dictator but an authoritarian president.
I'm not sure why you call the US form of government 'an authoritarian
presidential system.' It isn't "authoritarian' in any ordinary sense of
that word. Laws are passed by Congress and approved (or vetoed) by the
president, although Congress may in turn override a veto by a vote of at
least 2/3rds of both houses. The president appoints federal judges,
including Supreme Court justices, but those nominated must be approved
by Congress. The Supreme Court can overturn presidential directives
(which are not voted on beforehand) such as Roosevelt's Executive Order
90662, which called for the internment of persons of Japanese descent
living west of the Rockie Mountains. (In this case the Supreme Court
upheld its constitutionality.) A president may be impeached or removed
from office on other grounds by
Congress (or, I imagine, by the criminal justice system). And so on.
The Constitution does not require that presidents be elected by a
majority of the electorate; it does not even require that they be
elected by a plurality.
See e.g. http://tinyurl.com/69yk5q
Robert Paul.
not running for anything
Other related posts:
