libby

[mkilly]

I actually wasn't really referring to the current administration in particular, more that your constitution actually does allow any President the power to veto a Congress decision and to issue Presidential pardons. That is what surprises me.

You may be aware that Congress can override a presidential veto (though not a pardon). The supposition is that the fear of a public outcry would be sufficiently great to keep it in check... I guess when you have a president who's at 26% approval anyway, he just figures, screw it.

[Caravan Ray]

I actually wasn't really referring to the current administration in particular, more that your constitution actually does allow any President the power to veto a Congress decision and to issue Presidential pardons. That is what surprises me.

You may be aware that Congress can override a presidential veto

No - I wasn't aware of that. That, of course makes things very different....I just Googled - 2/3 of Congress can over rule a President's veto. OK - that seems reasonable....carry on with your democracy, citizens.

Though I am still slightly uncomfortable with the concept of one man thinking he has some sort of mandate to make unilateral decisions. And I am not alone. We had a referendum in Australia a few years ago about becoming a republic. And even though most of us really don't like the idea that our titular Head of State is likely to be some drug-addled layabout offspring of a mob of inbred Nazi sympathisers - at least that is better than electing some clown who might get it into his head that the people actually want him to do something more than just open church fetes and wear funny hats at the races.

What I do really like though is the word 'titular'. I must remember to use it more in everyday conversation...

[roymond]

Originally, the executive branch didn't have nearly as much power as it does today. They threw off a king, afterall, and but for the Federalist actions, it would have gone further and kept far more power individually in the states. That, with the economic policies of Alexander Hamilton has created a strange monkey indeed. While his policies may have allowed the financing needed short term for the French bribes, at least he died in Hoboken.

But hey, in theory we can oust the mods--I mean--the administration. Unfortunately the founding fathers didn't anticipate the amount of party in-breeding that has gone on these last 50 years. I don't see the Clintons as being part of a monster on the scale of Bushistan, but they certainly have the network.

[Hoblit]

I actually wasn't really referring to the current administration in particular, more that your constitution actually does allow any President the power to veto a Congress decision and to issue Presidential pardons. That is what surprises me.

You may be aware that Congress can override a presidential veto

No - I wasn't aware of that. That, of course makes things very different....I just Googled - 2/3 of Congress can over rule a President's veto. OK - that seems reasonable....carry on with your democracy, citizens.

.

Yeah, but there is this 'whole loyal to the party thing' and thats BESIDES the political intimidation. Can you imagine how the executive branch (and the majority of the judicial branch) would think and handle you in the future if they found out that you were part of the crowd trying to override the veto unsuccessfully? Never going to happen. Executive branch knows this.

[Caravan Ray]

You may be aware that Congress can override a presidential veto

No - I wasn't aware of that. That, of course makes things very different....I just Googled - 2/3 of Congress can over rule a President's veto. OK - that seems reasonable....carry on with your democracy, citizens.

.

Yeah, but there is this 'whole loyal to the party thing' and thats BESIDES the political intimidation. Can you imagine how the executive branch (and the majority of the judicial branch) would think and handle you in the future if they found out that you were part of the crowd trying to override the veto unsuccessfully? Never going to happen. Executive branch knows this.

Actually, I believe you have far less 'party loyalty' voting from your politicians than you will find elswhere. Isn't is relatively common for your politicians to 'cross the floor', or vote contrary to all their fellow party members?

That is a very, very drastic step for a politician to take here. Here, unless the party leader specifically deems a particular issue to warrent a 'conscience vote' (usually in the case of things deemed 'moral' issues such as euthanasia or stem-cell research) - all parties always vote as a bloc. In the Labor Party particularly, 'crossing the floor' results in automatic expulsion from the party.

The most recent case of members of Parliment defying their party was last year when 4 Liberal Party back benchers finally stood up to the Prime Minister and effectivey told him that treating asylum seeking refugees as criminals, and forcing them (including young children), into prison camps in the middle of the desert or on small Pacific islands was barbaric and he should jam his new immigration laws up his arse and try to act like a human being for a change.

So, out of 74 Parlimentary Liberal Party members, 4 were able to draw the conclusion that locking children up in concentration camps behind razor-wire is not a particularly good thing to do. I suppose that shows some hope...

[king_arthur]

Fer what it's worth, if you go to the online encyclopedia which shall not be named and search up their "List of United States presidential vetoes," almost every president has had at least one veto overridden. Not counting W (who, according to the list, has only vetoed three bills), the last six presidents who did not have ANY vetoes overridden goes all the way back to Abraham Lincoln (186x). So it does happen, fairly regularly. I'm sure there's a correlation between which party the president is from and which party controls Congress, as to how many vetoes there are and how many are overridden.

Charles