The US Constitution

D

DamnPocketProtector

Member
So polititians in the UK never violate the law? They are always put to trial if they do? Wow, you guys really have it figgured out!
I don't think Americans (at least the majority of) view our government a perfect. It has flaws. We have had leaders who are incompetent or just plain greedy. I think all forms of government have had these problems. Our founders were well aware of their flaws and the tendencies of men. That is why they tried to put some power checks into the system. We are not happy with where/who we are as a nation. This is one thing most all Americans believe. If not, then why all the protests and political debates? The thing we are working out is to how best solve these problems.
 
J

JenlJen

Member
Also, mostly yes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/9847152/Chris-Huhne-quits-as-he-faces-jail-after-pleading-guilty-to-perverting-course-of-justice.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Parliamentary_expenses_scandal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1447880.stm
 
S

Supergirl

Member
I support the constitution as any American with any sense does. It includes an amendment process, thats because the founders knew the country would change so they wanted the constitution to be able to change with it. However, the Bill of Rights is non negotiable so far as im concerned. Furthermore, George Washington said the 2nd amendment is the Teeth of liberty.
I am grateful to live in the greatest country on earth. How do i know America is the greatest country? Well 12-20 million illegal immigrants can't be wrong.
 
U

uselesshappy

New member
Wolfie mixed apples with pineapples (probably on purpose).
Mitlov did not say that the President himself will go on trial. He would have been wrong if he did, and he's too smart to make a mistake like that. He knows what he's talking about, and he correctly stated that the policies will be litigated in the courts.
 
N

NicolasA

New member
But if an executive isn't held to account then what meaning does that have? If you're dead or tortured and the people responsible for it aren't held to account what protection does it offer? This being Wolfie's point.
 
G

GhalebA

Member
Yes it was. So given you think it's nonsense and given what was said by Mitlov when will Bush or Obama go on trial? The answer I assume is never.

Which doesn't mean the British have it all figured out. Scotland is seeking independence for a reason and it's not because being part of the UK is so damned awesome.
 
C

ChadT

Member
Obama has effectively declared a constitution free zone extending inland of Americas borders and is conducting an illegal drone war around the world. Bush engaged in a campaign designed to bring about regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is illegal. Britain helped. We're equally guilty.

The president is the coofftopicnder of the US military? Yes? He gave the order for the drone war to go ahead? He's guilty. He should be held to account. Similarly Bush must have signed off on the plan for Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
G

Guitarist1587

New member
If you're dead, then it doesn't matter how many people are held accountable. You're dead. To reference Mitlov for a 2nd time -- the matter will go to court, and there will be a resolution.
 
M

molade_beko

New member
Except most of the liberal media does not flame the fire hotter as much on Obama's

Said media flamed a person for having to sip some water. (In likeness of the pot calling the kettle black)

Speaking of Democracy; Interesting links;

http://www.apatheticvoter.com/Article_DownfallDemocracies.htm

http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/03/democracies-always-fail.html

Democracy seem to favor those with the most money


Who knows what will happen 100 years from now
 
E

Election2008

New member
A couple of things here.

First of all, we do have a system to hold our elected Representative (Presidents included) accountable. On one level we have re-elections and we have the power of recall (take them out before the term ends). With the three branches, there are checks and balances and the ability for criminal charges and/or impeachment. A quick scan of history will highlight a few, e.g. Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and Andrew Johnson.

I think the case of Nixon is most pertinent here - one of the things (among many) that he was in trouble for (and most likely would have been removed from office for), was the "illegal" invasion of Cambodia.

Although the President is the Coofftopicnder-In-Chief of the military (to keep the military in civilian hands), he is limited on the duration that he can send troops into a combat area without Congressional approval (checks and balances again). Long story short, when we got involved in Vietnam, we did not want a formal declaration of "war" and were limited on what we could really do until Congress passed the "Tonkin Gulf Resolution", giving the President the ability to deploy additional forces to protect US forces in Vietnam from attack - this basically upset the balance of power and allowed us to conduct a 'war' without a formal declaration. Despite this, he still didn't have Congressional approval to extend it into Cambodia and he would have faced prison time for it (but Ford pardoned him). In 1973, Congress took back this power with the "War Powers Act" (quite a fascinating read some of you might enjoy).

Fast forward to today and we find a similar problem, only worse in my opinion. After the attacks on 2001, President Bush was able to use fear/media/nationalism/etc to encourage Congress to declare "War on Terror", giving the President the power to use force ANYWHERE in the war against terrorism (instead of declaring war on a specific country). These broad powers would seem to remove one of the checks on the power of the President in not requiring further Congressional approval to attack various places. So, in essence, the border area issue (lack of rights in that area) and the use of drones in various countries (as well as other military options) are legal under US law.

Now, as we all know, the US has a lot of influence and power in the world and the chances of some other country or power successfully being able to charge our President with an international "crime" (albeit legal under US law) really isn't going to happen. Who would enforce it? The UK, Canada, Russia, China, France? In some cases, might does make right...
 
Top