Obama blames Founding Fathers

[djacobox372]

"Blaming" and "Attributing" are different things.

Obama is "Attributing" and he's right. You have to understand a situation to be able to develop a strategy to work through it.

 

[panamaican]

Well according to people that actually have studied these things, i.e. not you, they are at least superficially superior.

They are superior for getting laws passed.

But that presumes that getting laws passed is the "why" for our government, it's not. Our system is not concerned with getting laws passed so much as it's concerned with limiting the power of each branch of government and even with limitations within the branches themselves.

 

[panamaican]

Yeah, the argument being made by those authorities is stronger than your "nuh-uh" rebuttal.
The argument, at least based on my casual reading, is that a parlimentarian system allows a prime minister to have majority support. This allows legislation to move forward without the sort of gridlock possible in our system but not in a tyrannical manner rolleyes. Gridlock is possible but there are democratic outs to keep things functional that don't exist in our system. Ultimately presidential systems can run to absolute gridlock at which time coups either in support of the president or the legislation occur. Alternatively legislative procedural processes can be put in place that neuter the executive branch (and, often, the second smaller legislative body). Either way the system breaks.

Our own system is further burdened by Duvegnier's Principle which pretty much guarentees that we'll keep a two party system regardless of what those parties are.

You can read some of Linz's discussion at:
http://www1.american.edu/ia/cdem/pdfs/linz_perils_presidencialism.pdf

I do want to point out that the U.S. presidential system was specifically designed to vest as few powers as possible within the president himself with the bulk of the power residing in the legislature.

Thus comparisons of parliamentary with presidential government should always try to remember that the U.S. system intentionally neutered the president. Something that other presidential systems do not do. This makes it a poor candidate for broad discussions about parliaments vs. presidents.

As your link notes: The American system is an exception to standard presidential systems.

 

[Cold Front]

Well according to people that actually have studied these things, i.e. not you, they are at least superficially superior.

Please. Stop being so vague. Who says they are better at what?

 

[UpaLoompa]

That's great, but parliamentary systems have led to people like Hitler coming to power. Parliamentary systems 1 checks and balances 0 for Hitler's coming to power.

Wow, your rebuttal is a flat out Godwin's Law post? You should have stuck with your former erudite rebuttal of "Nuh-uh". That was equally effective and less embarrassing for you.

Now on the subject of definitive proof of position in the War Room. You gotta to be delusional if you think anyone of the "regulars" in the War Room are going to budge much based upon an essay with a few cites. Not going to happen. So why go through the effort? You aren't going to convince me and I am not going to convince you. Therefore who is the audience we are really writing for?

Does anyone really have a hard and fast position about the superiority of a presidential versus parliamentarian systems? That would seem rather silly since I doubt very many people have thought much about it. I would hope most adults can at least occasionally look at arguments and modify their own stances, certainly that should be expected of adults when we're not talking about hardlline ideological issues. This part of your post seemingly translates to "I just posted to post and now don't have anything to say and don't want to admit I was just talking out of my ass".

 

[UpaLoompa]

Please. Stop being so vague. Who says they are better at what?

While I'm sure that OldGoat appreciates your support, that was actually laid out in the link that both you and he apparently failed to read and yet felt necessary to respond to.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I do want to point out that the U.S. presidential system was specifically designed to vest as few powers as possible within the president himself with the bulk of the power residing in the legislature.

Thus comparisons of parliamentary with presidential government should always try to remember that the U.S. system intentionally neutered the president. Something that other presidential systems do not do. This makes it a poor candidate for broad discussions about parliaments vs. presidents.

Honestly I'm not familiar enough with the constitutions of other countries to really agree or disagree with you. I suspect that Linz was.

As your link notes: The American system is an exception to standard presidential systems.

Apparently Linz felt that the 112th and 113th congresses were demonstrative that America as an exception didn't hold.

 

[Cold Front]

While I'm sure that OldGoat appreciates your support, that was actually laid out in the link that both you and he apparently failed to read and yet felt necessary to respond to.

Good. Then that means you should be able to provide a quick and easy answer.

 

[UpaLoompa]

They are superior for getting laws passed.

But that presumes that getting laws passed is the "why" for our government, it's not. Our system is not concerned with getting laws passed so much as it's concerned with limiting the power of each branch of government and even with limitations within the branches themselves.

Obviously our system was founded with concern for balancing power. I think it ridiculously absurd, however, to suggest that the system was structured intentionally to impede governance.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Good. Then that means you should be able to provide a quick and easy answer.

I have.

 

[panamaican]

Honestly I'm not familiar enough with the constitutions of other countries to really agree or disagree with you. I suspect that Linz was.


Apparently Linz felt that the 112th and 113th congresses were demonstrative that America as an exception didn't hold.

2 out of 100+ disproves that they're the exception? I'll take the track record.

 

[Cold Front]

I have.

So what part of Linz's argument do you agree with?

 

[panamaican]

Obviously our system was founded with concern for balancing power. I think it ridiculously absurd, however, to suggest that the system was structured intentionally to impede governance.

It was designed to intentionally limit the federal government's power over the states. I guess whether or not that's "impeding" governance might be a matter of perspective or, at worst, semantics.

In relation to state vs. federal debates, I'd think impeding governance was certainly a motivator, if not an outright goal.

In either case, it wasn't designed to facilitate the use of federal law-making.

 

[UpaLoompa]

So what part of Linz's argument do you agree with?

I've already responded to OldGoat, should I simply copy and paste my responses to you?
You should stop trolling, the mods are more heavy handed these days.

 

[UpaLoompa]

2 out of 100+ disproves that they're the exception? I'll take the track record.

I don't disagree, just find it an interesting anecdote.

 

[UpaLoompa]

(The constitution) was designed to intentionally limit the federal government's power over the states. I guess whether or not that's "impeding" governance might be a matter of perspective or, at worst, semantics.

Granted it has been awhile since I read through all the Federalist Papers but you have a very strong view that seems more ideologically than historically driven. Perhaps you can provide some support for our assertion?

 

[strangejosh]

2 out of 100+ disproves that they're the exception? I'll take the track record.

Or it just proves that it's getting worse and not better?

Eventually this thing is going to break down. It's just a matter of when.

 

[Cold Front]

I've already responded to OldGoat, should I simply copy and paste my responses to you?

You should stop trolling, the mods are more heavy handed these days.

Thanks for the warning, but I read through your comments and I still don't see much of a response. You're deflecting rather than answering questions.

 

[Cold Front]

Or it just proves that it's getting worse and not better?

Eventually this thing is going to break down. It's just a matter of when.

Yeah, but the point is whether it's going to break down because it's a presidential system. I highly doubt parliamentarianism will save it.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Thanks for the warning, but I read through your comments and I still don't see much of a response. You're deflecting rather than answering questions.

His arguments about deadlocks leading to stability seem reasonable. His assertion that parliamentary systems are more stable seems reasonable without going back and redoing all his work. As repeatedly stated, being only casually aware of the discussion his positions seem quite sound.