Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 28 Jun 2016, 8:29 am

In our many discussions on here, one of you in particular has observed (more times than necessary) the "obstructionism" prevalent within the American Government; particularly, within the Congress, or between the branches of government.

Here is what I'm wondering: are checks and balances necessary in a government? Can they be avoided? And is the US Government inefficient as it is due to an excess of checks and balances, or is it for some other such reason?

Also: are checks and balances unnecessary as long as the government is responsive to the people, or at least "as democratic as possible"?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 28 Jun 2016, 9:23 am

hacker
And is the US Government inefficient as it is due to an excess of checks and balances,


In large part. But then I would be rehashing srguments I presented to you often.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Jun 2016, 1:20 pm

rickyp wrote:hacker
And is the US Government inefficient as it is due to an excess of checks and balances,


In large part. But then I would be rehashing srguments I presented to you often.


1. When has that ever stopped you? You are the king of warmed-over, rehashed "srguments" (sic).
2. Checks and balances are, to address hacker's original question, vital. Our government is based on the belief that no one can be trusted with unchecked power.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 28 Jun 2016, 4:07 pm

Just think of what would have happened if Bush 43 was able to institute his desire w/o Congressional oversight.

I can just imagine the belly-aching coming from RickyP if that were to happen!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 29 Jun 2016, 12:45 am

If I understand Ricky's arguments, it is possible for a popularly-elected government to possess few checks and balances and still maintain a great degree of freedom and utility to its constituents simply because it has a dependence on the People for its power. Do I understand this argument correctly?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 29 Jun 2016, 8:42 am

hacker
If I understand Ricky's arguments, it is possible for a popularly-elected government to possess few checks and balances and still maintain a great degree of freedom and utility to its constituents simply because it has a dependence on the People for its power. Do I understand this argument correctly?

Few checks. But effective checks and balances.
The government of a parliamentary democracy, with a majority in the house, has very few checks on its power.... except the constitution and the need to prepare for the next election. And yet things get done.
Within the legislative process there are also some checks and influences at committee levels and constituents and stake holders have the ability to affect the agenda of the government through lobbying at the various regulatory bodies anddirectly... . But should a government be determined to take a course of action, they can. And they have the 4 or 5 year mandate before an election in which to make their policy work.
The difference Hacker, is that in the US system two majorities (one actually a super majority) and the executive branch are required for a similarly effective period of governance.
And that would only last for two years before an electoral challenge.
Moreover legislation is often subject never ending litigation that means it seldom takes effect immediately. And never ending lobbying at every level including at fairly independent regulatory bodies...
That and the parliamentary chicanery that stops "clean votes" on non-controversial matters (see Zika virus funding) stops much action. Then the never ending requirement of fund raising for elections means the representatives are rarely without the need to raise money and provide influence to those that they seek the money from. The vast amount required, and the lack of any restraint, means the very wealthy have an outsized influence.
The complexity of the system makes it prone to abuse by the minority and the monied.
(It could be argued tha the simpleness of a majority parliamentary system could lead to abuse by the majority. Or at least by the party with the majority seats - which is not always the same thing. That is true. But the electorate can end that abuse.
So on balance do you want the potential for 5 years of abuse by a majority, or the ongoing complexity that leads to abuse by a minority seeking to stop any action that does not benefit them?
What is the current popularity of Congress?


bbauska
Just think of what would have happened if Bush 43 was able to institute his desire w/o Congressional oversight

Which desire was that? The invasion of Iraq?
How'd that over sight work out?
One of the great myths is that elected representatives can always provide effective oversight by micro managing agencies of the government. Tha is often demonstrated when we see public hearings of Congressional oversight committees.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 29 Jun 2016, 9:10 am

Not just Iraq. ANYTHING!

You are so anti-Bush that I want you to imagine what could have happened. I want a 3 legged political system just for that reason. If there is something that I don't like, I know there can be a brake on it.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 29 Jun 2016, 2:17 pm

bbauska
You are so anti-Bush that I want you to imagine what could have happened. I want a 3 legged political system just for that reason. If there is something that I don't like, I know there can be a brake on it


Canada survived Stephen Harper for 9 years.. . For 5 years he had an unchecked majority..
Someone whose ideology I despised. I was all right with him actually being allowed and able to govern the country

On the other hand the current US system is dysfunctional for everyone... See Gun law debate and Zika debate.
Governments need an opportunity to actually govern and affect the changes they desire... Other wise you get endless gridlock and nothing gets to be given a chance...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 29 Jun 2016, 2:34 pm

Then we disagree.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Jun 2016, 2:36 pm

rickyp wrote:See Gun law debate and Zika debate.


Both issues are made up.

1. Democrats don't want to blame an Islamic terrorist, so they want to blame the weapon. Notice how when Istanbul is hit, it's terror, but when Orlando is hit, it's a gun problem? Democrats just used the dead Americans to raise money by throwing themselves on the floor of the House. Some liberals love tantrums enough to send them cash. For the adults in the US, it was as embarrassing as most of what Trump says.

2. The "Zika debate" isn't about Zika; Democrats are trying to stop the Republicans from doing what they were elected to do. Republicans don't want to give in, which is rare.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 29 Jun 2016, 3:52 pm

Just because someone has popular support doesn't mean they should still have as much power as possible. Popular power is still power, and power still corrupts, whatever may be the source.

Those of us who couldn't stand George W Bush, or those of us who couldn't stand Barack Obama (I count myself among both categories oddly enough) would find it unimaginable if they had been prime ministers of the United States, each able to command an absolute legislative and executive majority for eight years. If there were fewer checks and balances on each, and their detractors think they were dictators now, I shudder to imagine a system with fewer checks and balances. The only way to temper their behavior would have been the threat of violent revolution.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 30 Jun 2016, 7:17 am

hacker
. If there were fewer checks and balances on each, and their detractors think they were dictators now, I shudder to imagine a system with fewer checks and balances.


Why do you have to imagine it? There are plenty of governments in the world who operate in a parliamentary system with far fewer checks and balances.
And they function just fine... usually without the gridlock that yu alluded to in the opening of this topic.

Docto Fate
Both issues are made up

All issues are made up.
The point is that "obstructionism", as Hacker refered to it, that is the blocking of any action through the use of the "checks and balances" built into the system.
People want their govenrment to do something.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 30 Jun 2016, 7:22 am

I am a person. There are some things I DON'T want the government to do.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 30 Jun 2016, 7:53 am

OH really, Ricky? Would you care to name which governments "do just fine" that have less checks and balances?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Jun 2016, 8:44 am

rickyp wrote:Docto (sic) Fate
Both issues are made up

All issues are made up.


No, and that's a foolish statement. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, that was not a made-up issue. The Zika virus is not a made-up issue. The overspending of government is not a made-up issue.

The point is that "obstructionism", as Hacker refered to it, that is the blocking of any action through the use of the "checks and balances" built into the system.


The majority isn't always right. And, given that we don't have a parliamentary system that causes elections to take place if the ruling party over-reaches, I'm comfortable with obstructionism.

People want their govenrment (sic) to do something.


Maybe government can develop a browser with spellchecking built in?

Sometimes the people want their government to do less. That's why we Americans often choose divided government.