07-19-2003, 08:33 PM
Hi,
Kings get hammered plenty often, as do presidents.
I suspect your view on this is colored a bit by the British monarchs. From William the Bastard down, the British monarchs needed the support of the nobles to get anything done. That didn't change until the interregnum after which it was pretty much the consent of Parliament. So the British monarchs have been pretty limited. Compare the French and Russian.
I still think that Brits, Aussies and Canucks have more of a sense that the PM is their employee, and less their ruler, than Americans with their president.
Going to agree with you here, at least insofar as the American public look upon the president as the "leader" of the country. As defined in the Constitution, his job is executive, i.e., to enforce the laws that Congress passes. Occhi's remarks earlier about the president's agenda are a big indicator of what has gone wrong with this country. The president should have no more of an agenda than should a street cop. Both have the same job, albeit at different levels. Both are there not to make the laws but simply to enforce it.
This extends to the much touted "Commander in Chief" role. The president is indeed the CiC of the armed forces. As such he should decide how many forces of what types to use to fight the wars *that Congress declares*.
The fact that we have a president who is, for at least his term in office, as powerful as many historical monarchs is directly due to the stupidity of the common man. Not capable of thinking for himself, not able to understand the concept of the supremacy of the people, the average person looks for someone to follow. He gives up his position as the ruler of himself to some party hack. Jefferson must be crying, and Hamilton chuckling, "I told you so."
--Pete
Kings get hammered plenty often, as do presidents.
I suspect your view on this is colored a bit by the British monarchs. From William the Bastard down, the British monarchs needed the support of the nobles to get anything done. That didn't change until the interregnum after which it was pretty much the consent of Parliament. So the British monarchs have been pretty limited. Compare the French and Russian.
I still think that Brits, Aussies and Canucks have more of a sense that the PM is their employee, and less their ruler, than Americans with their president.
Going to agree with you here, at least insofar as the American public look upon the president as the "leader" of the country. As defined in the Constitution, his job is executive, i.e., to enforce the laws that Congress passes. Occhi's remarks earlier about the president's agenda are a big indicator of what has gone wrong with this country. The president should have no more of an agenda than should a street cop. Both have the same job, albeit at different levels. Both are there not to make the laws but simply to enforce it.
This extends to the much touted "Commander in Chief" role. The president is indeed the CiC of the armed forces. As such he should decide how many forces of what types to use to fight the wars *that Congress declares*.
The fact that we have a president who is, for at least his term in office, as powerful as many historical monarchs is directly due to the stupidity of the common man. Not capable of thinking for himself, not able to understand the concept of the supremacy of the people, the average person looks for someone to follow. He gives up his position as the ruler of himself to some party hack. Jefferson must be crying, and Hamilton chuckling, "I told you so."
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?
