Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: We Are Not a Democracy So Stop It 10

Overheard on a Sunday show today: the notion that Bush should consider pulling out, because, well, we just had a national election where people clearly expressed their preference for that.

I disagree with the fact presented in that question, but more importantly, the premise based upon that fact is utterly flawed. We do not have a democracy, we have a republic, and the reason we have an electoral college is first and foremost to insulate the President from the will of the people.

And seriously now, if we had the electoral college as it was meant to be (that is, based not on popular vote, but on legislative vote), we might not even have a President Bush today, even if he were elected in 2000. There is a very real chance the legislatures would have kicked Bush out in 2004, if given the chance.

But instead, the people chose, and they chose Bush. And he remains President until 2008, and he has no responsibility whatsoever to give a damn what the people think about anything he does.

It may be prudent for him to do it for political reasons, but he has no obligation to care, and I'd argue he has a responsibility to not care. Or at least, to not care to the point of necessarily agreeing with you. As the great Edmund Burke said, "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

We Are Not a Democracy So Stop It

Comments Filter:
  • To the extent not caring might lead to impeachment.
    • by pudge ( 3605 ) *

      To the extent not caring might lead to impeachment.
       
      That is not grounds for impeachment, and would never lead to his removal from office, at least not in any way that would leave the country with the least bit of respect for the Congress.
      • by ces ( 119879 )
        I don't know Congress says "don't do that", and the President does so anyway, can lead to impeachment if the public is more behind Congress than the President. This goes double if there is a legitimate question of Constitutional power.

        • by pudge ( 3605 ) *

          I don't know Congress says "don't do that", and the President does so anyway, can lead to impeachment if the public is more behind Congress than the President. This goes double if there is a legitimate question of Constitutional power.

          No, I cannot see that at all: it can only possible lead to impeachment if there is a legitimate question of Constitutional power, or if a crime has been committed. And even then, it goes to the Court first, and IF Congress wins in court, then the President will usually have the opportunity to comply with the Court ruling before impeachment (for legal/Constitutional disputes).

          See, the problem is that if Congress impeaches the President just for doing something it doesn't like, or even for overstepping his

          • by ces ( 119879 )
            No, I cannot see that at all: it can only possible lead to impeachment if there is a legitimate question of Constitutional power, or if a crime has been committed. And even then, it goes to the Court first, and IF Congress wins in court, then the President will usually have the opportunity to comply with the Court ruling before impeachment (for legal/Constitutional disputes).

            There is an element of popularity involved as well. If a President and his (or her) policies are popular and enjoy the support of the
            • by pudge ( 3605 ) *

              But if Congress is willing to impeach the President for doing something it doesn't like, then presumably before one gets to that point Congress has attempted to use it's legislative power to reign in the President.

              Well, no, I would not presume that. :-) We were here talking simply about Bush doing things people don't like, not denying the expressed (through legislation, etc.) will of Congress.

              Say by refusing to grant funding (power of the purse) or by revoking a previous war powers act resolution. If at that point the President ignores Congress then you have a basis for impeachment.

              In the former case, I may agree. In the latter, I'd think the Court should resolve the dispute first, since it is far from clear whether the Congress has the Constitutional (as opposed to statutory) power to do it (even though I think it does). But basically, yes.

              Mind you I believe there are quite a few impeachable offenses on the part of the President and the Vice President

              I can't see that at all. I've looked at every proposed arti

              • by ces ( 119879 )
                That's extremely unlikely, I think. First, I don't think there were any crimes, seeing no significant evidence of them (apart from, potentially, the disputes the Court needs to resolve, like warrantless wiretapping, but that is a legal problem, not an evidentiary one). Second, after all this time, surely some evidence would have come up by now. The longer it takes the less likely evidence is to crop up (except, perhaps, for that N-years-after-Bush's-death thing when we can read his papers

                Nixon's crimes took
                • by pudge ( 3605 ) *

                  Nixon's crimes took quite a while to see the light of day. Given that I don't think Congress has been doing much in the way of oversight during the past six years, who is to say what will be revealed once the various committees start issuing subpoenas and swearing in witnesses.

                  OK, but we could say the same thing about Clinton. The problem you have is there is no evidence Bush committed any crimes. You want to go on a fishing expedition to see if maybe he did commit some crime somewhere in something. With Nixon, we know he was involved somewhat in the crime committed at the Watergate, but we didn't know any details. With Bush, you not only have no evidence Bush committed a crime, you have don't even have a crime!

  • by capoccia ( 312092 )
    when your little republican republic turns into a democrat's republic in 2008 because the president was too obstinate to follow the will of the governed, we'll see if your tone changes. can bush finish iraq in 2 years? i really doubt it. in 2008, iraq will be a big black mark that overshadows anything good he ever did. bush won't be up for re-election, but bush's legacy will taint any republican. if we don't start pulling out of iraq now, we will be pulling out in 2 years.
    • by pudge ( 3605 ) *

      when your little republican republic turns into a democrat's republic in 2008 because the president was too obstinate to follow the will of the governed, we'll see if your tone changes.

      Since my tone is based on the Constitution and its writing, and I am an originalist, and my view has absolutely nothing to do with who wins a given election or which party is in control ... why would my tone change? (Pssssst: it won't.)

      bush won't be up for re-election, but bush's legacy will taint any republican. if we don't start pulling out of iraq now, we will be pulling out in 2 years.

      Maybe. So what? That has nothing to do with what I said, which is that a responsible President should not change his mind just because the people will him to do so.

      Indeed, as I noted, those who dislike the Iraq War might have our current bastardization of the American el

It is impossible to travel faster than light, and certainly not desirable, as one's hat keeps blowing off. -- Woody Allen

Working...