3 ms·

This kind of thing is a bit crazy. It feels like it's related to shared history with the UK where some political procedure rules also cause clearly unintended o

This kind of thing is a bit crazy. It feels like it's related to shared history with the UK where some political procedure rules also cause clearly unintended outcomes. It would never happen in more pragmatic systems (think: Germany) because nobody would accept it. I think it's based in a difference of legal philosophy, English law has always considered "exactly what is written down and nothing more" where some other systems tend to give weight to what is considered reasonable (with the ambiguity problems that comes with it) and the intent of the contract.

Ntrails 7y ago
I mean, you can blame the Brits for shit like filibusters all you like. This, however, is Americas very own special sauce
pjc50 7y ago
> English law has always considered "exactly what is written down and nothing more" where some other systems tend to give weight to what is considered reasonable (with the ambiguity problems that comes with it) and the intent of the contract. This isn't really a good description; English civil law leans on reasonableness a lot, and administrative law has "Wednesbury unreasonableness". And US constitutional law discussion goes on about the "intent of the founders" a lot. No, the Frankenstein veto is a consequence of having a highly partisan system and multiple layers of government. So you can get situations where the govenor and the legislature are engaging in this kind of stupid warfare. I don't think that's actually possible in Germany? Possibly the powers and subsidiarity are distributed in more clearly defined ways in the (partly US-written!) federal constitution?
- rebuilder 7y ago
  The US have a system where the president has the power to start a nuclear war. Consequently, the presidency is an supremely powerful office only one party can control at a time. This is a winner-takes-all system where the stable optimum is a two-party oligarchy.
  - NikolaeVarius 7y ago
    The authority to order a nuclear strike does not mean unilateral ability to cause it. This power is almost irrelevant to the issues concerning the current "duopoly" right now. Remember how no-one, not even the republican party, wanted Donald Trump to win, but somehow he did?
  - unishark 7y ago
    The presidency is one branch of three in the US federal govt, each with supreme power in their particular roles. The primarily powers of the presidency relates to foreign policy, as opposed to the congress which writes the laws and controls the budget. So an example of a power regarding who controls military capabilities doesn't prove the president is supremely powerful in a discussion about writing laws. Unless you imagine the president will use the military domestically like Caesar to create a dictatorship (which people keep predicting for pretty much every single president, yet hasn't happened).
- xg15 7y ago
  Yeah, this seems like one of the many absurd effects you get from the partisan environment of the US, similar to gerrymandering and strategic election of surpreme-court judges (who are supposed to be nonpartisan after all). I guess everything can be weaponized if politics is seen as a war and nothing else.

Ntrails 7y ago

I mean, you can blame the Brits for shit like filibusters all you like. This, however, is Americas very own special sauce

pjc50 7y ago

> English law has always considered "exactly what is written down and nothing more" where some other systems tend to give weight to what is considered reasonable (with the ambiguity problems that comes with it) and the intent of the contract. This isn't really a good description; English civil law leans on reasonableness a lot, and administrative law has "Wednesbury unreasonableness". And US constitutional law discussion goes on about the "intent of the founders" a lot. No, the Frankenstein veto is a consequence of having a highly partisan system and multiple layers of government. So you can get situations where the govenor and the legislature are engaging in this kind of stupid warfare. I don't think that's actually possible in Germany? Possibly the powers and subsidiarity are distributed in more clearly defined ways in the (partly US-written!) federal constitution?

rebuilder 7y ago
The US have a system where the president has the power to start a nuclear war. Consequently, the presidency is an supremely powerful office only one party can control at a time. This is a winner-takes-all system where the stable optimum is a two-party oligarchy.
- NikolaeVarius 7y ago
  The authority to order a nuclear strike does not mean unilateral ability to cause it. This power is almost irrelevant to the issues concerning the current "duopoly" right now. Remember how no-one, not even the republican party, wanted Donald Trump to win, but somehow he did?
- unishark 7y ago
  The presidency is one branch of three in the US federal govt, each with supreme power in their particular roles. The primarily powers of the presidency relates to foreign policy, as opposed to the congress which writes the laws and controls the budget. So an example of a power regarding who controls military capabilities doesn't prove the president is supremely powerful in a discussion about writing laws. Unless you imagine the president will use the military domestically like Caesar to create a dictatorship (which people keep predicting for pretty much every single president, yet hasn't happened).
xg15 7y ago
Yeah, this seems like one of the many absurd effects you get from the partisan environment of the US, similar to gerrymandering and strategic election of surpreme-court judges (who are supposed to be nonpartisan after all). I guess everything can be weaponized if politics is seen as a war and nothing else.