Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Powder Miner]

I apologize if I'm too heated, it's not meant to come off that way -- none of you guys make me mad, I just really like political debate and get excited :V

And, well, of course he wouldn't have to do an EO over background checks if Congress did, but that's because Congress disagrees with him, and Congress disagreeing with him ought not be an excuse for an Executive Order. Part of the reason Congress exists separately from the president is to keep him from shooting declarations and bits of his agenda from his sleeves like a magician.

[Strife26]

I'm relatively okay with use of executive orders, as long as the other party gets power quickly enough, Congress can cut them down, and the judicial system has a chance to kill things for unconstitutionality.

[Powder Miner]

That's a lot of ifs that, while they SHOULD be the case constitutionally, are at risk from other political factors, oftentimes.

[Strife26]

Yep, that's why I have to include the relatively weasel word. Governments shouldn't be trusted much further than throwing distance.

[scriver]

Yes... The three part government is parted for a reason. And iirc the president is not supposed to be the legislative organ. Then again as long as society doesn't treat congress and senate as actually making the laws and always putting responsibility on the president then I guess you might as well actually give him the responsibility.

[Willfor]

Yes... The three part government is parted for a reason. And iirc the president is not supposed to be the legislative organ. Then again as long as society doesn't treat congress and senate as actually making the laws and always putting responsibility on the president then I guess you might as well actually give him the responsibility.

But that would mean people couldn't abuse the system, and then turn around and blame someone else for it. That's entirely unreasonable, scribs.

[Lord Shonus]

hen again as long as society doesn't treat congress and senate as actually making the laws and always putting responsibility on the president then I guess you might as well actually give him the responsibility.

If you're going to do that, you might as well just crown him Barack the First. The entire principle of a democratic government, no matter the details of organization, is that laws should be made by the representatives of the people, not an individual.

Executive orders that concern the organization of the executive branch are fine. Executive orders that enforce the decisions of Congress or the Supreme Court when someone else digs in their heels? That's why we have a separate executive branch in the first place. Orders that say "hey, this law isn't right, we shouldn't enforce it until Congress reworks it" are edging close to the line, but generally are OK as long as you don't go too far. An executive order that expands the law? Not just no, but hell no, whether it's something I'm for or something I'm against.

From the sound of it, the order being contemplated is a mixture of 2 and 4 - closing the gun show loophole does edge close to an expansion of the legislation, but is clearly in line with the intent of that law (the "private party" loophole was intended more to cover things like giving guns as Christmas presents or selling a gun you don't want anymore to a neighbor, while gun show sellers are obviously professional merchants), so it isn't clear at this point where it's going to fall.

[scriver]

hen again as long as society doesn't treat congress and senate as actually making the laws and always putting responsibility on the president then I guess you might as well actually give him the responsibility.

If you're going to do that, you might as well just crown him Barack the First. The entire principle of a democratic government, no matter the details of organization, is that laws should be made by the representatives of the people, not an individual.

I don't want to get overly defensive of a statement made in bitterness, but technically the president is still an elected representative of the people :V

[MetalSlimeHunt]

He's actually not, even technically. He's the elected executor of the elected representatives.

[scriver]

Okay, but can we at least agree that he is both elected and a representative? That's almost the same.

[Rolepgeek]

Honestly, I end up agreeing with Churchill half the time. Democracy as the tyranny of the majority pretty much sucks. Short terms for representatives mean all their power is spent on trying to get reelected, rather than what is genuinely best for the country/people.

The only difference between a functional democracy and a dysfunctional mob is in the intelligence, knowledge, and morals of it's members.

[Powder Miner]

The issue with that is that with "what's the best for the country" is not an objective value. I know I believe that a reduction of government influence in many matters would benefit the nation, but there are others who DEFINITELY disagree with me (I had a few incredible discussions with a self-proclaimed authoritarian), and that's where democracy comes in in the first place. Short terms hold officeholders accountable to more than just their own definitions of this value, which would blow over dissenting voices with even greater efficiency.

Incidentally, the existence of Congress GREATLY GREATLY safeguards against tyranny of the majority, with voices for SEVERAL groups that would see very little sway otherwise, like the mountain states. The ability of congressmen to slow presidents down because they have to to get elected prevents the presidents from ignoring the voices that didn't vote them in.

[Egan_BW]

Honestly, I end up agreeing with Churchill half the time. Democracy as the tyranny of the majority pretty much sucks. Short terms for representatives mean all their power is spent on trying to get reelected, rather than what is genuinely best for the country/people.

The only difference between a functional democracy and a dysfunctional mob is in the intelligence, knowledge, and morals of it's members.

∴ praise friend computer.

[Zangi]

If only gerrymandering and voter suppression ain't a real thing either...

[Helgoland]

The only difference between a functional democracy and a dysfunctional mob is in the intelligence, knowledge, and morals of it's members.

If only gerrymandering and voter suppression ain't a real thing either...

Because "the legislature is useless, we can at least get something done with a strong executive" has never caused problems before.

Would you rather hear 'Your country's so fucked, a proper democracy is no longer workable'?