Can someone explain US democracy to me?

[Franconicus]

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?

[English assassin]

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.

[Al Khalifah]

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.

[InsaneApache]

OMG!!!!! ....

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......

[bmolsson]

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

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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

Ther are none that apply to the statements you made.

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.

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.

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.

[Franconicus]

Gawain,
Thank you for the reply.

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.

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.

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?

[Al Khalifah]

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.

[Pindar]

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.

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

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

[Red Harvest]

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.

[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.

[Franconicus]

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

[Red Harvest]

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

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.

[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.