Pages: 1

 

2007-01-07 13:50:46
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6830|North Carolina
Here's the question: Which is better for representative government? A strong executive or a strong legislature?  In a democratic republic or parliamentary system, there is always a conflict of interests between the executive branch and the legislative branch.  Some people prefer a stronger executive and others support a stronger legislature.

Recently, we've seen the current American government shift toward more power for the executive branch.  Many support this trend, but I personally am against it.

I think the legislative branch better represents the people than just one man on top.  I think better changes are supported by government when at least a partial consensus must be reached.  Changes take longer to implement this way, but usually, cooler heads prevail.

Decentralizing authority is essential to maintaining personal freedom -- at least, we've seen what happens when the executive branch has too much power: Saddam, Kim Jong Il, Ayatollah Khamenei, Pinochet, Hitler....

Of course, I'm not suggesting that our government compares to the ones above, but in order to keep our country going in the right direction, I think it's necessary to limit the power of the executive.  That way, if things get too bad in the legislature, we can always "throw the bums out" (like in 1994 and in 2006).

The president is thankfully still subject to the people as well, but we have to wait up to 4 years to throw him/her out.  With Congressional elections happening every two years, the will of the people is more readily apparent.

What do you guys think?
2007-01-07 13:55:05
[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi
Why walk when you can dance?
+77|7012|sWEEDen
Power to the people!!!
2007-01-07 13:56:09
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6870|The Land of Scott Walker
Strong legislature.  I agree decentralizing authority is essential to maintaining personal freedom.
2007-01-07 14:00:29
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6954|Global Command

Stingray24 wrote:

Strong legislature.  I agree decentralizing authority is essential to maintaining personal freedom.
And Bush is hated by many conservatives like me because he is doing everything he can to increase the executive powers through back door channels.

I'm not sure if all he has done can ever be undone, and this is a major reason I say he is the worst president in the history of America.
2007-01-07 14:05:36
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6830|North Carolina

ATG wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Strong legislature.  I agree decentralizing authority is essential to maintaining personal freedom.
And Bush is hated by many conservatives like me because he is doing everything he can to increase the executive powers through back door channels.

I'm not sure if all he has done can ever be undone, and this is a major reason I say he is the worst president in the history of America.
Wow...  Some pretty bold statements there.  I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on the authority issue.  I would agree that true conservatives believe in decentralized government and states' rights.  It's the part of conservatism that I agree with.  My social views are primarily the reason why I'm Libertarian as opposed to being Republican.  The recent shift of the GOP toward big government certainly hasn't improved my opinion of them either.

I will say this though...  I think Andrew Johnson was, by far, the worst president we've had.

Bush is probably the worst president we've had in the last 50 years though.
2007-01-07 14:09:29
[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi
Why walk when you can dance?
+77|7012|sWEEDen
I can´t beleive it...ATG smacked Bush´s ass?
2007-01-07 14:12:56
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7006|SE London

ATG wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Strong legislature.  I agree decentralizing authority is essential to maintaining personal freedom.
And Bush is hated by many conservatives like me because he is doing everything he can to increase the executive powers through back door channels.

I'm not sure if all he has done can ever be undone, and this is a major reason I say he is the worst president in the history of America.
QFT.
2007-01-07 14:18:57
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6954|Global Command

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

I can´t beleive it...ATG smacked Bush´s ass?
I call it like I see it.

Bush sux.
2007-01-07 14:26:37
[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi
Why walk when you can dance?
+77|7012|sWEEDen
I agree....he is turning your nation into a far worse thing then the DDR.....DDR did not have the money or resources for effecting the whole world. Taking away civil rights...reading the peopels mail...turning himself untouchable with new laws and handing the power to the big companies...soon enough your president and the president of coca-cola will be the very same man. Good thing he can´t get elected again...but I guess he still has time for changing that law also....
2007-01-07 14:30:09
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7006|SE London

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

I agree....he is turning your nation into a far worse thing then the DDR.....DDR did not have the money or resources for effecting the whole world. Taking away civil rights...reading the peopels mail...turning himself untouchable with new laws and handing the power to the big companies...soon enough your president and the president of coca-cola will be the very same man. Good thing he can´t get elected again...but I guess he still has time for changing that law also....
Even worse we might end up with a Cheney/Bush administration rather than a Bush/Cheney one.
2007-01-07 14:32:54
[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi
Why walk when you can dance?
+77|7012|sWEEDen
ooooh the horror....you just made my boxers brownish....damn it.
2007-01-07 14:35:32
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6830|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

I agree....he is turning your nation into a far worse thing then the DDR.....DDR did not have the money or resources for effecting the whole world. Taking away civil rights...reading the peopels mail...turning himself untouchable with new laws and handing the power to the big companies...soon enough your president and the president of coca-cola will be the very same man. Good thing he can´t get elected again...but I guess he still has time for changing that law also....
Even worse we might end up with a Cheney/Bush administration rather than a Bush/Cheney one.
Cheney seems to have more of a clue than Bush, but that's not saying much.  He basically knows his agenda is screwing most citizens for the sake of military and oil interests.
2007-01-07 14:39:44
UGADawgs
Member
+13|6746|South Carolina, US

ATG wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Strong legislature.  I agree decentralizing authority is essential to maintaining personal freedom.
And Bush is hated by many conservatives like me because he is doing everything he can to increase the executive powers through back door channels.

I'm not sure if all he has done can ever be undone, and this is a major reason I say he is the worst president in the history of America.
Bush is certainly expanding his powers, but this has been a trend that has gone on for a long time. Even Lincoln took some powers that weren't his, but the real upturn in presidential powers took place during FDR's presidency. All Presidents following have only magnified their power, so you can't blame Bush solely for this.

Also, Bush is far from the worst president in America. While you may not like Bush, there were definitely more ineffective and damaging presidents.

I agree....he is turning your nation into a far worse thing then the DDR.....DDR did not have the money or resources for effecting the whole world. Taking away civil rights...reading the peopels mail...turning himself untouchable with new laws and handing the power to the big companies...soon enough your president and the president of coca-cola will be the very same man. Good thing he can´t get elected again...but I guess he still has time for changing that law also....
Lol. For all that Bush has done, he hasn't come anywhere close to East Germany, and Bush can't just arbitrarily give himself more terms, period.
2007-01-07 14:51:16
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7182|Argentina

ATG wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Strong legislature.  I agree decentralizing authority is essential to maintaining personal freedom.
And Bush is hated by many conservatives like me because he is doing everything he can to increase the executive powers through back door channels.

I'm not sure if all he has done can ever be undone, and this is a major reason I say he is the worst president in the history of America.
I absolutely agree with all you said.  If I were the guy saying these words I'd be called anti-American, but you are right, he is an awful president and made a lot of damage to America.  Hopefully his huge mistakes will be fixed by the next woman, I mean man in charge.
2007-01-07 14:57:27
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6830|North Carolina

UGADawgs wrote:

ATG wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Strong legislature.  I agree decentralizing authority is essential to maintaining personal freedom.
And Bush is hated by many conservatives like me because he is doing everything he can to increase the executive powers through back door channels.

I'm not sure if all he has done can ever be undone, and this is a major reason I say he is the worst president in the history of America.
Bush is certainly expanding his powers, but this has been a trend that has gone on for a long time. Even Lincoln took some powers that weren't his, but the real upturn in presidential powers took place during FDR's presidency. All Presidents following have only magnified their power, so you can't blame Bush solely for this.

Also, Bush is far from the worst president in America. While you may not like Bush, there were definitely more ineffective and damaging presidents.
True...  Ironically, I actually believe FDR was our greatest president, but he implemented many things that should have been ended a while ago.  He set into place too many institutions and executive powers that, over time, should have been absolved.  So yes, Bush is not solely to blame, but he certainly isn't making the situation any better.

Again, I'll agree that Bush isn't the worst president we've had, but he's even farther from being the best.
2007-01-08 05:45:26
JimmyBotswana
Member
+82|7010|Montreal

Turquoise wrote:

ATG wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Strong legislature.  I agree decentralizing authority is essential to maintaining personal freedom.
And Bush is hated by many conservatives like me because he is doing everything he can to increase the executive powers through back door channels.

I'm not sure if all he has done can ever be undone, and this is a major reason I say he is the worst president in the history of America.
Wow...  Some pretty bold statements there.  I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on the authority issue.  I would agree that true conservatives believe in decentralized government and states' rights.  It's the part of conservatism that I agree with.  My social views are primarily the reason why I'm Libertarian as opposed to being Republican.  The recent shift of the GOP toward big government certainly hasn't improved my opinion of them either.

I will say this though...  I think Andrew Johnson was, by far, the worst president we've had.

Bush is probably the worst president we've had in the last 50 years though.
Why. What did Johnson do that was so bad? I'm too lazy to wikipedia him but I can't believe he would render null and void as many parts of the constitution as Bush has managed to do, so I can't see how he could be worse. Still, I would like to hear it.
2007-01-08 05:47:35
TeamZephyr
Maintaining My Rage Since 1975
+124|6954|Hillside, Melbourne, Australia
It's important for any country to maintain a strong legislature over a strong executive.

Unchecked executive powers leads to fascism.
2007-01-08 07:54:03
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6980
Devolve power as much as possible is what I think. The more you consolidate representation into fewer people the further you get from being truly 'representative'. It's why, in many instances, politics in smaller countries works far better than in larger countries - people feel closer to the political process and feel that they can actually have an impact. Small government doesn't get away with the same tricks big government gets away with and ending up pandering solely to those that bankrolled their rise to the top.

Typical example: A strong executive in USA has allowed a minority group to have more political clout than they should reasonably be expected to have by flashing about the mighty dollar. AIPAC ensures that Israel has a strong influential (controlling?) hand in US foreign policy. That isn't exactly in the interests of your average joe from middle america.

Russia suffers the same problem (considerably worse though). Too much power concentrated in the executive - absolute power corrupting absolutely - oligarchs raping the country wholesale - Russia is heading for the dustbin of humanity.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-08 08:29:23)

2007-01-08 15:50:56
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6830|North Carolina

JimmyBotswana wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

ATG wrote:


And Bush is hated by many conservatives like me because he is doing everything he can to increase the executive powers through back door channels.

I'm not sure if all he has done can ever be undone, and this is a major reason I say he is the worst president in the history of America.
Wow...  Some pretty bold statements there.  I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on the authority issue.  I would agree that true conservatives believe in decentralized government and states' rights.  It's the part of conservatism that I agree with.  My social views are primarily the reason why I'm Libertarian as opposed to being Republican.  The recent shift of the GOP toward big government certainly hasn't improved my opinion of them either.

I will say this though...  I think Andrew Johnson was, by far, the worst president we've had.

Bush is probably the worst president we've had in the last 50 years though.
Why. What did Johnson do that was so bad? I'm too lazy to wikipedia him but I can't believe he would render null and void as many parts of the constitution as Bush has managed to do, so I can't see how he could be worse. Still, I would like to hear it.
Andrew Johnson was the president who entered office after Lincoln was assassinated.  He began as a Democratic Vice President in 1864 when Lincoln needed a friend among the War Democrats.  War Democrats were a party that formed out of Northern Democrats, and their rivals were the Copperhead Anti-War Democrats.  The Republican Party wanted to appeal to War Democrats in the 1864 election, since they had the common interest of continuing the Civil War.  Andrew Johnson was the only Southern Democrat who did not leave his post in Congress during the secession of the South.  Despite being a representative of what became a Confederate State, he turned his back on his own state in order to gain political favor among the Radical Republicans who ran the Union.

Admittedly as a Southerner, I have a certain bias against this man for being what I see as a traitor to a state he was supposed to represent (Tennessee).  But the scandal goes beyond just this.  As President, he headed Reconstruction, which mostly amounted to punishing the South and foolishly putting black people into harm's way by placing them in political offices.  While enfranchising blacks was a noble ideal (as was ending slavery), the way that the North imposed this on the South was very naive and made blacks targets of a much more hateful racism than was even existent in the South beforehand.  This was the point in time where the KKK went from being an organization that helped single mothers and punished deadbeat dads to being a racist hate group that lynched black people.

I can't blame Johnson for the actions of the KKK and other racists, but I can blame him and the Radical Republicans for creating a situation where black people became scapegoats who would be victimized on the same level as enslavement for almost another 100 years.  By changing things so suddenly and violently in the South, the North heightened racism in the South rather than suppressed it.

In addition to this, Johnson did nothing to lessen the Northern carpetbagging of the South.  He did nothing to punish Sherman for senselessly burning Atlanta to the ground.

In summary, by running Reconstruction as negligently and punitively as he did, he betrayed his home states of Tennessee and North Carolina.  That kind of man is the lowest of the low in my book.
2007-01-08 15:55:58
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6830|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

Devolve power as much as possible is what I think. The more you consolidate representation into fewer people the further you get from being truly 'representative'. It's why, in many instances, politics in smaller countries works far better than in larger countries - people feel closer to the political process and feel that they can actually have an impact. Small government doesn't get away with the same tricks big government gets away with and ending up pandering solely to those that bankrolled their rise to the top.

Typical example: A strong executive in USA has allowed a minority group to have more political clout than they should reasonably be expected to have by flashing about the mighty dollar. AIPAC ensures that Israel has a strong influential (controlling?) hand in US foreign policy. That isn't exactly in the interests of your average joe from middle america.

Russia suffers the same problem (considerably worse though). Too much power concentrated in the executive - absolute power corrupting absolutely - oligarchs raping the country wholesale - Russia is heading for the dustbin of humanity.
Damn good post, Poe 

This is why I think countries like Norway are better than America when it comes to freedom.  Small, prosperous, and culturally unified countries generally fare better than large, culturally ambiguous ones.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard