Can someone explain US democracy to me?

[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.

[Red Harvest]

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. Respect for offices, institutions, and the like is only extended when "their man" is in the position.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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?