3 ms·

I would argue the three branches should rarely be aligned with each other. They should follow the Constitution AND keep checks and balances on each other. Neith

I would argue the three branches should rarely be aligned with each other. They should follow the Constitution AND keep checks and balances on each other. Neither of the branches should have absolute power over the others. This opinion, although not an expert one, is because of what is currently happening in the US and the lack of wisdom being employed.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
[flagged]
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  If the bill is outside what the Constitution allows, then yes, that is exactly what is supposed to happen. And it has happened, several times. If you want the bill, first amend the Constitution.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    Agreed but this is not at all what was being discussed.
- unethical_ban 1y ago
  The point of checks and balances is not obstruction for the sake of obstruction. It is that no branch should be subservient or overly deferential to the other branches. For example, Congress should not do everything the president wants just because he's the president as is happening now. Congresspeople have said out loud that the job of Congress is to ask "how high" when the president says "jump". Congress last year backtracked on immigration reform because the Republican candidate demanded it. Congress just took vacation early because the president needs a break from the stress of being on a sex traffickers contact list. Congress has allowed the executive to destroy congressionally mandated departments without challenge. Each body of government should be protective of their own power and responsibility and fight against other branches illegally usurping it. I recommend reading Federalist 51, and perhaps 53 and 76. Also John Adams "Thoughts on Government".
  - philistine 1y ago
    What you're describing is the least of your problems with Trump. In a Westminster system, the leader of the party in power is basically the head of government, the head of state, and the leader of the legislature all rolled into one. And it works without destroying democracy. I genuinely believe that good can come out of American political parties becoming single leader parties. The democrats should do the same, honestly. The fact that Trump has completely eliminated any internal distinction within his party, and deemed it vital that his R-mates have to do exactly what he says, is not what concerns me with Trump. It's everything else.
    - unethical_ban 1y ago
      Well, we don't have a parliamentary system, and our executive has more power than a UK prime Minister, I believe. What you're advocating for is a vestigial legislature to do the will of the king (in the US system). Between a two party system, a gerrymandered House and a useless Senate, the last thing we need is an absolute ruler.
    - AlecSchueler 1y ago
      The British PM isn't "basically" or in any way the head of state or of the legislature. The monarch and the House of Lords still exist and the latter should and very much do assert their power.
      - philistine 1y ago
        You believe that the monarch has any vestigial power?? If the PM calls the King to prorogue Parliament, they HAVE to do it. And the House of Lords has given its authority to the House of Commons. A British Prime Minister has more power than an American President.
        AlecSchueler 1y ago
        > You believe that the monarch has any vestigial power?? I believe they are the head of state and that they carry out the functions of the head of state in a way that is consistent with comparable states such as Ireland or The Netherlands. > And the House of Lords has given its authority to the House of Commons. No they have not. The 1911 Act is alive and well. It is occasionally called into question but the Lords have retained their authority. And all of this is to say nothing of the courts etc. > A British Prime Minister has more power than an American President. This is neither here nor there in regards to the claim made above. They are not "basically" the legislature...

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

[flagged]

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
If the bill is outside what the Constitution allows, then yes, that is exactly what is supposed to happen. And it has happened, several times. If you want the bill, first amend the Constitution.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  Agreed but this is not at all what was being discussed.
unethical_ban 1y ago
The point of checks and balances is not obstruction for the sake of obstruction. It is that no branch should be subservient or overly deferential to the other branches. For example, Congress should not do everything the president wants just because he's the president as is happening now. Congresspeople have said out loud that the job of Congress is to ask "how high" when the president says "jump". Congress last year backtracked on immigration reform because the Republican candidate demanded it. Congress just took vacation early because the president needs a break from the stress of being on a sex traffickers contact list. Congress has allowed the executive to destroy congressionally mandated departments without challenge. Each body of government should be protective of their own power and responsibility and fight against other branches illegally usurping it. I recommend reading Federalist 51, and perhaps 53 and 76. Also John Adams "Thoughts on Government".
- philistine 1y ago
  What you're describing is the least of your problems with Trump. In a Westminster system, the leader of the party in power is basically the head of government, the head of state, and the leader of the legislature all rolled into one. And it works without destroying democracy. I genuinely believe that good can come out of American political parties becoming single leader parties. The democrats should do the same, honestly. The fact that Trump has completely eliminated any internal distinction within his party, and deemed it vital that his R-mates have to do exactly what he says, is not what concerns me with Trump. It's everything else.
  - unethical_ban 1y ago
    Well, we don't have a parliamentary system, and our executive has more power than a UK prime Minister, I believe. What you're advocating for is a vestigial legislature to do the will of the king (in the US system). Between a two party system, a gerrymandered House and a useless Senate, the last thing we need is an absolute ruler.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    The British PM isn't "basically" or in any way the head of state or of the legislature. The monarch and the House of Lords still exist and the latter should and very much do assert their power.
    - philistine 1y ago
      You believe that the monarch has any vestigial power?? If the PM calls the King to prorogue Parliament, they HAVE to do it. And the House of Lords has given its authority to the House of Commons. A British Prime Minister has more power than an American President.
      - AlecSchueler 1y ago
        > You believe that the monarch has any vestigial power?? I believe they are the head of state and that they carry out the functions of the head of state in a way that is consistent with comparable states such as Ireland or The Netherlands. > And the House of Lords has given its authority to the House of Commons. No they have not. The 1911 Act is alive and well. It is occasionally called into question but the Lords have retained their authority. And all of this is to say nothing of the courts etc. > A British Prime Minister has more power than an American President. This is neither here nor there in regards to the claim made above. They are not "basically" the legislature...