Can someone explain US democracy to me?

I am aware that the US have a very old and stable tradition in demoracy. Todays German democracy was brought by US troops and the Americans had much influence in our const. However, there are some major differences.

In democracy there are some unwritten laws. For example a German Kanzler had to withdraw when a consultant was discovered being a spy.

Now what is the ethical code for the government in the US.
Why do I ask? Well I am confused why the current presidnet is still there.

If he was German president the situation would be:

1. He told the people and the parliament that the nation had to attack Iraq. Main reason was presence of WMD. The parliament and the public accept. Iraq is conquered. Then the president tells that there are no WMD. He was wrong but the war was a good thing anyway. - Well he would have had to go immediatelly. Regardless if this war was won or not.

2. Torturing of prisoners by military persons: If this was just a single case the minister of defense would have been under pressure but he would have survived. If there was evidence that there was not enough control by the officers the minister had to go. If he would not do this in time, the president had to fire him or go himself.

3. If there was evidence that the government wants to violate or ignore human rights the president had to go as well.

So again, what are the unwritten laws in the US?

A very interesting question. Time was in the UK, misleading parliament was an instant resigning matter, by convention.

Times change it seems. In the US too maybe.

Quote:

---

Time was in the UK, misleading parliament was an instant resigning matter, by convention.

---

Time was in the UK when there was a credible opposition party, forever on the heels of the governing party ready to capitalise on their mistakes rather than agree with their actions, even taking into account that the evidence for the taking of such actions was invalid and possibly illega.

OMG!!!!! ....:hide:

It's probably a sign of the times that the elected leaders show such utter contempt to the electorate. Honour, it seems is a limited commodity when it comes to ramming your point through.

Going to war is about as serious as it gets, and if you get it wrong then you go. Nope...sorry not these guys. They lied to us, to go to war for a yet unknown agenda. At first I was sceptical about claims made by 'lefties' etc about the war for oil thingy...now I'm not so sure.

Time will tell...... ~:handball:

US is not a democracy. It's a republic, so help them God...... ~;)

Quote:

---

So again, what are the unwritten laws in the US?

---

Ther are none that apply to the statements you made.

Quote:

---

1. He told the people and the parliament that the nation had to attack Iraq. Main reason was presence of WMD. The parliament and the public accept. Iraq is conquered. Then the president tells that there are no WMD. He was wrong but the war was a good thing anyway. - Well he would have had to go immediatelly. Regardless if this war was won or not.

---

Didnt Blair do the samething? Wait didnt he and Bush both get re elected? I guess the people of these countries werent upset by what happened. We dont throw out a president just because they were wrong on something. We have a written law and its called impeachment to handle such matters.

Quote:

---

2. Torturing of prisoners by military persons: If this was just a single case the minister of defense would have been under pressure but he would have survived. If there was evidence that there was not enough control by the officers the minister had to go. If he would not do this in time, the president had to fire him or go himself.

---

You dont know that as you havent been in a war since you were a democracy and havent had a prisoner since 1945. There is prisoner abuse in every war in history incuding by the US in WW2 but we didnt ask FDR to step down.

Quote:

---

3. If there was evidence that the government wants to violate or ignore human rights the president had to go as well.

---

There is no such eveidence against the US. Only accusations.

Gawain,
Thank you for the reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

We dont throw out a president just because they were wrong on something.

---

Even if he is wrong in a case about war or peace? That is different here in Germany. Kanzler and Minister have to go pretty fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

You dont know that as you havent been in a war since you were a democracy and havent had a prisoner since 1945. There is prisoner abuse in every war in history incuding by the US in WW2 but we didnt ask FDR to step down.

---

The abuse itself would not be a reason, I agree. But didn't they find out that there was not enough control there? That would be enough. German view is that the Minister is responsible for his organisation. If s.th. goes wrong he has to go even if he did not know. However, he could be reelected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

There is no such eveidence against the US. Only accusations.

---

But they put them at strange places and refused to give them a status of either criminals or POW. Isn't that enough to be suspicious?

Quote:

---

Didnt Blair do the samething? Wait didnt he and Bush both get re elected? I guess the people of these countries werent upset by what happened. We dont throw out a president just because they were wrong on something. We have a written law and its called impeachment to handle such matters.

---

Blair is not elected by the populace, he was chosen because he is the leader of the political party that won the most seats in the United Kingdom. His party recieved considerably less than half of the popular vote in the UK and were in fact the second party in terms of popular vote in England. They lost 47 parliamentary seats in the election following the war and as a result now only have a small majority. So the people in Britain were pretty angry with Blair, but because the alternative is so weak there was no chance of his party being defeated - it would've required the largest swing in history.

Quote:

---

Now what is the ethical code for the government in the US.

---

Whatever you can get away with. If you can keep the media from digging at it, and keep the courts out of it, and the public lets it slide, then you got away wth it.

ichi :bow:

Blair 'won' just about because the opposition was absolutely rubbish. Kind of like Bush and Kerry. If Bush had been up against someone who was actually good then he would have been ripped to shreds. Same with Blair.

We need proportional representation here asap.

I think that Blair won because most of the electorate remember Thatcher, and those that don't have had it drilled into their heads that Baroness Thatcher was/is evil, and a vote for Tory is a vote for Baroness Thatcher...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

Whatever you can get away with. If you can keep the media from digging at it, and keep the courts out of it, and the public lets it slide, then you got away wth it.

ichi :bow:

---

Right, the media has shown no interest at all in publicizing alleged abuses at the US prison camps like Gitmo. ~;)

I'd say that if the media keeps digging at it, the courts stay out of it, and the public "lets it slide", maybe its not as bad as some would say. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

German view is that the Minister is responsible for his organisation. If s.th. goes wrong he has to go even if he did not know.

---

So one should wonder why Mr. Fischer is still our foreign minister........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Now what is the ethical code for the government in the US.

---

The grounds for Impeachment are: "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

The indictment occurs under the House of Representatives and the trial is handled by the Senate.

Quote:

---

So again, what are the unwritten laws in the US?

---

There are no unwritten laws under the U.S. system save popular opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So one should wonder why Mr. Fischer is still our foreign minister........

---

Dont know much about him but whats so bad about him?

Isn't he the guy who threw a firebomb and burned a policeman half to death? Oh yeah, he's reformed, we're not supposed to talk his anarchist days. Sorry, my bad.

Somehow I think this is a response to Capo's post.

He hasnt stepped down Franconious because most Americans dont want him to, especially if it would allow a leftist in power. :bow:

Yeah it probably is Panzer. I was just asking a question, not trying to stir up an argument.

The grounds for Impeachment are: "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"

Is a blowjob a high crime or misdemeanor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grey_Fox

The grounds for Impeachment are: "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"

Is a blowjob a high crime or misdemeanor?

---

Certainly not- perjury is though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Isn't he the guy who threw a firebomb and burned a policeman half to death?

---

No, he participated in the demonstration where this happened and some people hold him "morally responsible" for the incident (whatever that's supposed to mean)

I apologize for slandering Herr Minister Fischer. I apparently blended two stories attributed to the 'peace-loving' leader of Germany's Green party:

1) During a violent student protest, in 1973, he was photographed wearing a helmet and stomping on an unarmed police officer who had fallen to the ground. While never formally apologizing, Fischer called the action 'regrettable' and said that a credible break with his past would require an apology.

2) During a period in which he was the recognized leader of a student protest group, 1976, members of his organization firebombed a police car.

Aaah, but he's Mr. Peace now. Good thing we have such a man of high moral caliber available to teach us the way of the world: the molatov cocktail.

Peace, Love & Brutal Beatings: The Real Green Party

Well, I guess I could make a remark about the current US president's past trouble with the law, but then I guess I won't ~;) ~D

Be my guest. It won't hurt my feelings. He has a DUI conviction, as far as I know, and there's rumors that he got off on a possession charge for cocaine, but no supporting documents.

Yep, even assuming he did both, that's right up there with stomping on an unarmed policeman. :bobby: :whip:

Surely you can do better than that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Be my guest. It won't hurt my feelings. He has a DUI conviction, as far as I know, and there's rumors that he got off on a possession charge for cocaine, but no supporting documents.

Yep, even assuming he did both, that's right up there with stomping on an unarmed policeman. :bobby: :whip:

Surely you can do better than that...

---

Well - the question is what makes you less suitable for a high-ranking political position.
Being a drunkard, druggie and all-around "good-for-nothing" guy or having a brawl with the police during a demonstration (and demonstations during that time were rather violent from both sides)?
Usually I would say I'd rather see none of them in a responsible position - but then, considering that these "phases" for both were decades before they came into power, however, I would tend to say that both is rather irrelevant.

Fair enough. But something tells me if we dug into Herr Fischer's past with the same prying eyes Mr. Gore's team dug into Mr. Bush's, you'll find evidence that he was both. ~D

I would say there's a difference between crimes of stupidity and crimes of violence, but as you point out, which truly is worse? The more I think about it, the less sure I am ~:confused:

Anyway, the thread is about why Bush hasn't had to resign, and I believe Gawain & others have done a good job explaining our impeachment process. Not to imply that our current president should face it, as while I might question his judgement at times, that's not an impeachable offense, but...

There is a striking difficulty with the impeachment process in that if the majority power holds both the presidency and the House (never mind the Senate) there's slim chance of getting one. If the majority party holds the Senate, as opposed to the House, there's slim chance for the impeachment to be successfully prosecuted. As we don't form coalition governments, we have no equivalent of a 'confidence vote'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazul

Dont know much about him but whats so bad about him?

---

He(or the people he is responsible for) let a lot of criminals into Germany who shouldn´t be here, I don´t know what exactly they did wrong, but they made it a lot easier for criminals to come to Germany in a legal way. It was a big concern here and I think it´s still being investigated.
But now that Schröder wants early voting and may pretty well lose this, the government was trying to stop the investigation, but some court decided it was against our constitution.
Now if it´s an unwritten law that a politician has to go if he or his employees do something wrong or immoral, then why did he not yet leave?
Similar case is one of our female politicians who wanted to raise the payment for all employees in her office short before losing the voting.

In the end I appologise for not knowing all the correct political terms. ~;)

I firmly believe Bush should be impeached for his WMD claims. It was intentional deception. However, he is the teflon president. All mistakes or false claims are the responsibility of subordinates if you believe him. Impeachment isn't going to happen. The Republicans so abused the investigative process and impeachment of Clinton, that there won't be much support for it in the future even when justified for weighty national matters, such as this.

Bush has been the most divisive president we've had in my memory. He has been intentionally setting one group against another in this country by playing to his base. If Reagan was the "Great Communicator" then Bush is the "Great Polarizer."

I supported war against Iraq, as I felt (and still feel) that Saddam had done 10 times as much as needed to justify the war. He could not be left in place. However, my justification was not WMD scares. I always felt the WMD justification was unnecessary and said so at the time, but I didn't realize that it was a fabrication until later.

In retrospect I would not give this administration such power again. They muffed the affair and we have suffered far more casualties than we should have as the result of their incompetence. The bigger concern to me is that it has given North Korea freedom to do what they like, and they are a greater threat. In addition, they left matters unresolved in Afghanistan to conduct the war in Irag. That is yet another major strategic blunder.

Okay, from my debates with Americans on this board and in the past, I would say that there is no unwritten law in the US, if there is a hole in a law, the first court to face it will either pass a verdict that will be a precedent (and have ,almost, the power of law) or refer it to another court (like the Supreme Court).

Historically, there are three reasons why a presidency was ended early.

1) The president dies

This is what happened most, i think about 6 or 7 presidents have died while in office. note that dead doesn't mean 'seriously ill and unable to perform' Cleveland's presidency (IIRC) was ended with his wife effectively taking the post in all but name. I think he had a serious stroke. There might be a law now that says the president needs to be able to perform his duties.

2) the president resigns

Only happened once, Nixon, as he was about to be impeached

3) Impeachment

The real deal, some other posters have explained it. No president has ever been impeached successfully (3 were tried, Nixon resigned, Johson stayed in office because of one vote, Clinton's impeachment was a farce).
The important thing here is that the procedure is carried out by Congress, and not a court. This means that a president can do whatever he wants, as long as he has enough backing in congress. It takes two thirds of the senators to convict to impeach a president (half of the representatives to start the impeachment), the current senate is half republican. There is no way they will impeach Bush unless his popularity really falls.

Which is the real issue I guess, a president only gets impeached if his popularity rating is ridiculously low and/or the other party controls most of the Senate. It's not a legal tool, it's a political one (I doubt this was intended by the framers, but that's how it evolved).


There are other reasons why a president doesn't resign as easily as one might in Europe. I think a US president has significantly more power than any European one. He also less dependent on his party (especially important when the leader is a Prime Minister). Individual politicians are hesitant to speak out against him, the image of the president as a strong leader of the free world is a powerful one (if, in practice, untrue). Partisan politics are less important then in Europe, there is no real opposition like we know it.

And even if the president resigns or is impeached, the vice president takes over. Next in line are two other republicans. The US system doesn't allow for the executive to fall as it can in most European countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Blair 'won' just about because the opposition was absolutely rubbish. Kind of like Bush and Kerry. If Bush had been up against someone who was actually good then he would have been ripped to shreds. Same with Blair.

We need proportional representation here asap.

---

I know what you mean. Here in Canada the liberals have been ruling for 12 years. And their isn't much chance of them going. Despite the fact that they are as crooked as the day is long. They pissed away 1 billion dollars in Quebec. But since the only alternative to them is the Canadian version of G.W. Bush and his brand of conservatives. No opposition=more liberal party crookedness. *sigh*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grey_Fox

The grounds for Impeachment are: "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"

Is a blowjob a high crime or misdemeanor?

---

It's murder if she swallows ..... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So one should wonder why Mr. Fischer is still our foreign minister........

---

You know that he was at the edge. He and his organisation made mistakes. But in my opinion they were not so severe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Okay, from my debates with Americans on this board and in the past, I would say that there is no unwritten law in the US, if there is a hole in a law, the first court to face it will either pass a verdict that will be a precedent (and have ,almost, the power of law) or refer it to another court (like the Supreme Court).

Historically, there are three reasons why a presidency was ended early.

1) The president dies

This is what happened most, i think about 6 or 7 presidents have died while in office. note that dead doesn't mean 'seriously ill and unable to perform' Cleveland's presidency (IIRC) was ended with his wife effectively taking the post in all but name. I think he had a serious stroke. There might be a law now that says the president needs to be able to perform his duties.

2) the president resigns

Only happened once, Nixon, as he was about to be impeached

3) Impeachment

The real deal, some other posters have explained it. No president has ever been impeached successfully (3 were tried, Nixon resigned, Johson stayed in office because of one vote, Clinton's impeachment was a farce).
The important thing here is that the procedure is carried out by Congress, and not a court. This means that a president can do whatever he wants, as long as he has enough backing in congress. It takes two thirds of the senators to convict to impeach a president (half of the representatives to start the impeachment), the current senate is half republican. There is no way they will impeach Bush unless his popularity really falls.

Which is the real issue I guess, a president only gets impeached if his popularity rating is ridiculously low and/or the other party controls most of the Senate. It's not a legal tool, it's a political one (I doubt this was intended by the framers, but that's how it evolved).


There are other reasons why a president doesn't resign as easily as one might in Europe. I think a US president has significantly more power than any European one. He also less dependent on his party (especially important when the leader is a Prime Minister). Individual politicians are hesitant to speak out against him, the image of the president as a strong leader of the free world is a powerful one (if, in practice, untrue). Partisan politics are less important then in Europe, there is no real opposition like we know it.

And even if the president resigns or is impeached, the vice president takes over. Next in line are two other republicans. The US system doesn't allow for the executive to fall as it can in most European countries.

---

Wow, so the president has a very srong position. Amazing :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Wow, so the president has a very srong position. Amazing :dizzy2:

---

Better to call it a more stable position. The U.S. has a more secure chief executive position by design. Contrast that with some European govt's that change leaders frequently.

Contrary to popular perception, the U.S. uses representative government rather than "pure" democracy. If you look at the U.S. system closely it is meant to reflect the will of the people, but with considerable moderation, and some protection against "tyranny of the masses." Simple direct majority rule can be fickle and very dangerous--look at what Athens did to itself during its ancient times of crisis. The Framers understanding of Athens history was pivotal in determining how to structure a representative form of government. The divisions of government reflect the Framers understanding of the need for moderation. Like the pre-Imperial Roman republics, power is dispersed with some checks and balances. The Senate is meant to be a longer term, more stable group to moderate the short term "whims" of the House of Representatives. The Judicial branch is even more slow moving. This all works well over the long haul, although there are problems when one party gets control of too many parts at one time...

Impeachment was meant as a last resort for serious abuses of power. (I have a difficult time seeing how getting a BJ from a willing, pursuing intern fits that definition.) Taking the nation to war under manufactured pretenses is sufficient for me since it is a crime against the nation at many levels. The unfortunate part is that there is no recording or memo that is a smoking gun. Deniability is the watchword for this administration. We all now know that the WMD's were false, but the trail to prove the president ordered the manufacture of a false case is only spotty. And then we get to intent...was it done with knowledge that it was untrue? Or was it done with arrogant ignorance--simply ignoring dissenting opinions and evidence to the contrary? As we have seen from a pattern of his decisions, Bush would have a strong defense in the latter. Afterall, the most common defense of corporate executives caught in corporate fraud is that they were unaware and that some bad underlings were responsible. They will claim incompetence to escape successful prosecution.

The Framers debated impeachment at length and came to the conclusion that they did now want the Executive impeached as a political tool by the elected representatives.

Andrew Johnson's impeachment was a travesty similar to the Clinton impeachment although of far more import...and interestingly again by Radical Republicans. Ostensibly he was impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act, an act passed over his veto. This act was later declared unconstitutional--Dubya would have a stroke if he had to abide by anything like this, he has a hissy over Senate confirmations already, even with it stacked in his favor. I read some years ago that while he was spared by one vote, the truth was that other senators were prepared to vote against it as well, but found it unnecessary after the critical one vote was cast. So the remainder did the politically safe thing with their votes. I am not sure if this is correct.

While I can understand your argument that Ken Starr shouldn't have been investegating the President's sex life in the first place, he did not get impeached for cheating on his wife. He got impeached for lying under oath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

While I can understand your argument that Ken Starr shouldn't have been investegating the President's sex life in the first place, he did not get impeached for cheating on his wife. He got impeached for lying under oath.

---

Almost forgot you had made this comment. In fact, he was impeached for purely political reasons. (Yes, I thought it was a stupid lie and won't defend that, but it was a personal civil matter that should not have been ongoing at the time anyway.) It was a politically motivated investigation from the beginning. It didn't find what was wanted so it dragged on. Meanwhile, a civil suit was filed many years after an alleged incident. This one was being funded by the typical right wing hack jobs and was again a political tool.

Then it got interesting. The supreme court had to make a ruling on whether a sitting president should be required to face such a civil trial for an event so far out of date. This court has been very unpredictable and I have found a number of their rulings odd (whether they leaned right, left, or for against my personal feeling on the subject.) However, this time they came up with a whopper of a bad decision. They decided it was ok. Their opinion as stated was that defending oneself in a civil case would not be unduly distracting to performance of ones duty as chief executive. Hello!!! I can't imagine many things more distracting from my work than having to conduct a civil defense in front of the entire country. Whether or not you agree with the ruling itself, the basis they gave was 100% Grade A horse manure. And even if you agreed with it at the time...later events certainly revealed how inaccurate its basis was.

What is really saddening is that it has left me with the impression that right wingers didn't (and don't) care how much damage they do to the country as long as they get their desired result. :sad: Respect for offices, institutions, and the like is only extended when "their man" is in the position.

Quote:

---

What is really saddening is that it has left me with the impression that right wingers didn't (and don't) care how much damage they do to the country as long as they get their desired result. Respect for offices, institutions, and the like is only extended when "their man" is in the position.

---

Oh please the democrats are far more guilty of that. Clinton did more damage to the office of president than ayone in recent memory. Of course most liberal presidents cheated on their wifes, FDR and Kennedy being the ones who first come to mind. How much does a room at the Whitehouse cost under Bush?

For people saying Bush won because most people in america like him, that is completely incorrect.

In his first election bush actually lost the popular vote by like 50,000 votes, and in the recent vote he had like 52%(i believe). So i wouldnt really say most americans like, its really about half. Americas presidents arnt cosen by their quality anymore, its more about their political party ~:confused: .

Quote:

---

Americas presidents arnt cosen by their quality anymore, its more about their political party

---

Sounds like Britain. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Oh please the democrats are far more guilty of that. Clinton did more damage to the office of president than ayone in recent memory. Of course most liberal presidents cheated on their wifes, FDR and Kennedy being the ones who first come to mind. How much does a room at the Whitehouse cost under Bush?

---

I fail to see what his personal life had to do with damaging the office of the president. I don't care if Dubya sleeps with Michael Jackson, if I don't have to watch and if Dubya could actually be good at his job as president.

I'm sure the room costs a fortune. It certainly takes a lot of money to get on his task forces, and the going rate for an ambassadorship is through the roof. Of course, you won't need to understand the language or culture of your new post.

The Republican party: First with the irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Oh please the democrats are far more guilty of that. Clinton did more damage to the office of president than ayone in recent memory.

---

Gawain, this is something Europeans will never understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

In his first election bush actually lost the popular vote by like 50,000 votes, and in the recent vote he had like 52%(i believe).

---

Clinton never even got 50%, yes it was because of Perrot, but you can't say he was very popular either.

Quote:

---

Of course most liberal presidents cheated on their wifes,

---

They're just more open (stupid ?) about it, a lot of politicians cheat on their wives.

If military records are important for a president, shouldn't a macho thing like having a very active sexlife be something positive as well.... ~;)