Author Topic: Is Barack Obama Plotting a Coup? by John Hinderaker  (Read 292 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 258,931
Is Barack Obama Plotting a Coup? by John Hinderaker
« on: August 04, 2014, 08:58:21 AM »

Support the USO

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,836
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Is Barack Obama Plotting a Coup? by John Hinderaker
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2014, 09:15:02 AM »
Don't you have an equivalent to our "Vote of no confidence?" You must have, somewhere, the Founding Fathers were not that foolish and came from a Parliamentary system.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
Re: Is Barack Obama Plotting a Coup? by John Hinderaker
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2014, 09:51:00 AM »
Don't you have an equivalent to our "Vote of no confidence?" You must have, somewhere, the Founding Fathers were not that foolish and came from a Parliamentary system.

We call it Impeachment.  Those with the juice to do it are cowards, those with the desire to do it are crazy.  Or just seek to up their own bottom line.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,836
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Is Barack Obama Plotting a Coup? by John Hinderaker
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2014, 09:54:43 AM »
We call it Impeachment.  Those with the juice to do it are cowards, those with the desire to do it are crazy.  Or just seek to up their own bottom line.

It would be the next level down from impeachment, I think. Trying to equate the two systems is difficult.

To give you an example I am more familiar with:

Impeachment would be the equivalent of removing a CO for cause.
Vote of no confidence would be the equivalent of a platoon requesting their orders in writing.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
Re: Is Barack Obama Plotting a Coup? by John Hinderaker
« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2014, 02:59:56 PM »
It would be the next level down from impeachment, I think. Trying to equate the two systems is difficult.

To give you an example I am more familiar with:

Impeachment would be the equivalent of removing a CO for cause.
Vote of no confidence would be the equivalent of a platoon requesting their orders in writing.

Not to my knowledge.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 48,223
  • TBR Illuminati
Re: Is Barack Obama Plotting a Coup? by John Hinderaker
« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2014, 04:48:57 PM »
Don't you have an equivalent to our "Vote of no confidence?" You must have, somewhere, the Founding Fathers were not that foolish and came from a Parliamentary system.

No.  The Founders were suspicious of the parliamentary system in part because it was, technically, still beholden to the king and because the executive and legislative powers were mixed - the prime minister, the main executive - is the head of the party that controls the legislative.

The Founders wanted full separation of the three branches and did not want one branch to be able to take the other down without a lot of effort.  A vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system brings down the executive; however, it is also a vote against the leadership of the legislative branch as well inasmuch as the prime minister is the head of the party in control.  Given that, a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system is essentially a fight within the same party; the minority party on its own cannot force a successful vote of no confidence.

In the American system, the party that controls the legislative does not necessarily control the executive.  If the parliamentary vote of no confidence existed, there would be a real risk that the party controlling Congress might use it in a purely partisan manner to bully an executive of the other party.  The mechanism for resolving the situation would also be complicated.  Since the president is not also the leader of the party that controls Congress, holding new Congressional elections would not resolve the problem because a new slate of Congress would not result in the president being replaced (or in the people giving their own vote of confidence).  Since new Congressional elections would not be a solution, there would have to be a new presidential election.  That might replace the president with someone more amenable to Congress, or not.  It might also result in the re-election of the president whom Congress no-confidenced, leading to exactly the same impasse that caused the vote of no confidence in the first place.  It would also make it impossible for the people to hold Congress accountable for no-confidencing a president whom the people like - in other words, the people could not immediately punish Congress for voting no confidence on a president whom the American people preferred.


That is one of the real problems that resulted in so much opposition in Australia to replacing the Queen with a popularly-elected president.  I took a constitutional law course under Greg Craven back in 2000 and we had some interesting discussions about the subject.  Basically, the entire Australian system of government would have had to change in order for a popularly-elected president to work.  The argument he raised against simply replacing the Queen with a popularly-elected president was that such a president, having her/his own power base separate from parliament, would start to exercise the Head of State's prerogative on legislation to frustrate the prime minister and the party in control of parliament by refusing to consent to legislation for purely partisan reasons, no matter how good or necessary the legislation.  The Queen, as unelected head of state, and by very long-standing tradition, generally does not refuse consent to legislation unless the legislation is really horrible.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 04:56:51 PM by Oceander »

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 76,515
Re: Is Barack Obama Plotting a Coup? by John Hinderaker
« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2014, 05:01:21 PM »
Don't you have an equivalent to our "Vote of no confidence?" You must have, somewhere, the Founding Fathers were not that foolish and came from a Parliamentary system.

The considered it an it is called the vote.  Since the people approved the Constitution, only they can have a vote of no confidence to throw out politicians.  That kind of vote left to politicians was too dangerous for the framers.  Remember, it was politicians who voted for secession, not the people, and for that reason Lincoln did not accept their "new country."  That same kind of thing could happen if politicians can call for "no confidence."  It called government of the people, by the people, and for the people, at least at one time it was.
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf