[lit-ideas] Re: Giving Thanksgiving/Adorno and TAP
- From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:02:58 -0500
On 12/7/2010 1:10 PM, palma wrote:
does anyone bother to note that "democracy" is a
formal term to be speeld out in different ways?
Yes indeed, and in history, absolute democracy is
usually a terrible practice. (Note dead Socrates.
Remember Alcibiades. Consult Aristotle.)
Omar wrote: few if any democratic states grant the
chief executive the ability to veto legislation,
appoint the supreme judges and the major ministers
(Secretary of State, Defense etc) and issue
decrees that have the force of law as long as they
are not openly unconstitutional.
* To veto legislation sends it back to Congress,
which has the power to override the President. If
a President vetoes very popular legislation,
moreover, his entire political party may suffer at
the mid-term elections, so it is seldom done.
* To appoint Supreme Court judges is an infrequent
practice, as all judges are not replaced during a
particular term; further, once appointed, the
Supreme Court judges are not responsible to, or
indebted to, anyone at all, including the
President. (Remember how angry Eisenhower was with
his appointment, yet could do nothing.)
* To "issue decrees that have the force of law as
long as they are not openly unconstitutional" in
the US is a very lowly power, given the range of
things considered unconstitutional, especially in
peace time. In fact, the power of the US President
has declined considerably since Truman.
Case in point is the War Powers Act, through which
Congress limits the President's ability to wage
all-out war, or to demand a full Declaration of
War. With a full declaration of war, "the gloves
come off," nukes and all, but under the War Powers
Act, Congress limits how the US can wage war, and
makes a president's war subject to Congressional
review. War Powers Acts have governed US wars in
modern times.
* In addition, the appointed cabinet members,
and/or Congress, can remove a US President if he
or she gets too crazy or is shown to be acting
criminally (in the case of Nixon or Clinton).
I hope this helps explain misconceptions about the
role of the US President.
Eric
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
