Bush and Blair

[MrPeach]

Do Bush and Blair have much individual power or does whay they say and do just come from a group of advisors and they're just being used as figure heads?

I figured that they didnt have much power... but someone just had a go at me saying they were scared as Bush could do whatever he wanted and is stupid....

hmmm

[Grimble]

lol

Originally posted by MrPeach
Bush is stupid....

lol

[Nodrog]

Bush has the power to execute any legislation that has passed through Congress, and has sole authorisation to use the military in his position of Commander in Chief.

Originally posted by Nodrog
Bush has the power to execute any legislation that has passed through Congress, and sole authorisation to use the military as his position of Commander in Chief.

Ahh... officially.. but really he's just a figurehead. The secret services control it all, as you would know if you read the mirror lately for the Queen's revelations (according to Burrell)about "powers at work".

[Chrism]

I despise both of them, Blair slightly more so.

[MrPeach]

Originally posted by Lord Boredom


Ahh... officially.. but really he's just a figurehead. The secret services control it all, as you would know if you read the mirror lately for the Queen's revelations (according to Burrell)about "powers at work".

I didn't read the mirror. Any more depth into this?

Originally posted by MrPeach


I didn't read the mirror. Any more depth into this?

not really.
Quite frankly, Burrell is a lying sod who patently did steal, and got off on a technicality. His stories about the queen are all very loyal, just complete crap. He is patently dishonest, and I don't like what he's doing to the royal family, although the bad publicity for the Spencers is amusing.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by MrPeach
Do Bush and Blair have much individual power or does whay they say and do just come from a group of advisors and they're just being used as figure heads?

I figured that they didnt have much power... but someone just had a go at me saying they were scared as Bush could do whatever he wanted and is stupid....

hmmm

Watch 'Yes, Prime Minister' and learn all

not really.
Quite frankly, Burrell is a lying sod who patently did steal, and got off on a technicality. His stories about the queen are all very loyal, just complete crap. He is patently dishonest, and I don't like what he's doing to the royal family, although the bad publicity for the Spencers is amusing.

Apparently he slept with Barrymore though, according to the Sun...

[Mushroom]

for bureaucracy

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Bush has the power to execute any legislation that has passed through Congress, and has sole authorisation to use the military in his position of Commander in Chief.

Did you know congress can cut off funding after 60 days though? Not likely now though with a majority republican house of representatives and senate. Apparently he's also the first republican president to ever hold both houses!

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood

he's also the first republican president to ever hold both houses!

credit where it's due, he doesnt look that strong.

[Tzencath]

technically, the queen is commander in chief of the UK army, along with the australian one, and several others still under imperial (yeh, it's called sumin else, but that sounds better) control.

so up yours bush!

[Apothos]

Originally posted by Tzencath
technically, the queen is commander in chief of the UK army, along with the australian one, and several others still under imperial (yeh, it's called sumin else, but that sounds better) control.

so up yours bush!

Dont the places like Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc. have constitution's that make her not 'commander-in-chief', or did i just make that up?

[meaple]

thread bumping twat munchers

[Apothos]

Originally posted by meaple
thread bumping twat munchers

That comes across as an insult, but is really a rather nice thing to say.

[Miserableman]

The Queen is a stealth ninja!!!!!

[K03N]

Originally posted by Miserableman
The Queen is a stealth ninja!!!!!

Bush is stupid
(i know this is probably faked, but still funny )

[Ste]

Originally posted by Lord Boredom


Ahh... officially.. but really he's just a figurehead. The secret services control it all, as you would know if you read the mirror lately for the Queen's revelations (according to Burrell)about "powers at work".

According to a lot of people it's the Jews and Freemasons...
oh don't you love conspiracy theories...

[Chrism]

Originally posted by Apothos
Dont the places like Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc. have constitution's that make her not 'commander-in-chief', or did i just make that up?

The Commander-in-Chief of those countries is I believe, the Governor-General, the Queen's official representative in the country.

[Tzencath]

exactly, so the queen still gets to control stuff, so

(i'm probably wrong, but what they hey, nyeh )

[Apothos]

Originally posted by Tzencath
exactly, so the queen still gets to control stuff, so

(i'm probably wrong, but what they hey, nyeh )

Cool, i wonder what would happen if she tried, hehe.

Bush is a monkey who blair lost his womanhood to - again

I'm afraid you'll find reality is always less exciting.

politicians have very little power. only the courts hold anything close and even that's not enough.

[JammyJim]

In the states the legislative (congress) branch can be vetoed by the executive (president) who can be vetoed by the judiciary (courts)who can be vetoed by the legislative(congress). kinda funky baby..

basically if something was 'rather contenious' it might take forever depending on which parties control what to pass it.

its the fundamental drawback to the american constituional system.


maybe im wrong but im tired ... :/

Originally posted by JammyJim
In the states the legislative (congress) branch can be vetoed by the executive (president) who can be vetoed by the judiciary (courts)who can be vetoed by the legislative(congress). kinda funky baby..

basically if something was 'rather contenious' it might take forever depending on which parties control what to pass it.

its the fundamental drawback to the american constituional system.


maybe im wrong but im tired ... :/

no you're right.

it's why we shouldn't have an elected second house and why never ever on god's green earth should judges be 'elected' or appointed by politicians.

[JammyJim]

the lectures are working afterall.....

[Chrism]

Originally posted by YahweII
no you're right.

it's why we shouldn't have an elected second house and why never ever on god's green earth should judges be 'elected' or appointed by politicians.

The House of Lords Act 1999 is one of the biggest mistakes this country has ever made.

Originally posted by MrPeach
Do Bush and Blair have much individual power or does whay they say and do just come from a group of advisors and they're just being used as figure heads?

I figured that they didnt have much power... but someone just had a go at me saying they were scared as Bush could do whatever he wanted and is stupid....

hmmm

Bush can't do whatever he wants, but he controls 2 of the 3 branches of government, twice what the president is supposed to have and infinitely more than what he should have.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by MonotoneMan


Bush can't do whatever he wants, but he controls 2 of the 3 branches of government, twice what the president is supposed to have and infinitely more than what he should have.

There is nothing wrong with the party of the President controlling the legislature.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by YahweII
[b]
it's why we shouldn't have an elected second house and why never should judges be 'elected' or appointed by politicians.

Who should appoint them?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by JammyJim
the judiciary (courts)who can be vetoed by the legislative(congress)

I dont think this is correct, do you have a source?

As far as I know, the Supreme Court can overrule both President and Congress.

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by MrPeach
Do Bush and Blair have much individual power or does whay they say and do just come from a group of advisors and they're just being used as figure heads?

I figured that they didnt have much power... but someone just had a go at me saying they were scared as Bush could do whatever he wanted and is stupid....

hmmm

In answer to this first question.

At current both Bush and Blair have immense domestic power. British Prime Minister's naturally have more power in home affairs than U.S. presidents, due to the peculiarities of the British political system: at current this is further increased by Labour's huge majority in the Commons (180 or thereabouts), and the increasing automation of government. For some reason Blair wishes to increase his already supreme power over government by making the House of Lords less powerful, but that's another story.

The increasing automation of the processes involved in passing legislation is making the Cabinet and Parliament less relevant. There are less and less advisory committees each year, and Blair seems intent on making himself as absolutely powerful as our system of government will allow, albeit discreetly. The man in the street doesn't appreciate the complexities involved in giving Blair a stranglehold on the parliamentary system; even this is just a rough outline.

Blair could push through any piece of legislation he wished, as long as it wasn't utterly absurd and didn't clash with anything previously written.

Bush is in as similar a position as possible, almost, in the context of the American system. He would be more powerful if he controlled 66% of both Houses, and three-quarters of the states, but he doesn't, quite. It is an interesting question to ask as to whether Bush now holds as much domestic power as Blair. Much as I would like to try and answer this, I don't really have time.

A good look at the reasons for this would involve at least preliminary analysis of the United States Constitution. This would be long and rather complicated, and I'm writing this at school. I may have the time and energy tonight sometime, when I'm at home.

Condensed, therefore:

1) Blair has far more power than his ministers and is most definitely not a figurehead. He is by a long way the most powerful man in England and, if he felt the need, could do almost anything he wished.

2) Bush is less powerful, as it is the nature of U.S. government, under their Constitution, to act as a check on itself in numerous ways, as JohnnyBGood indicates. Everything is a check on everything else, until at least two-thirds of everyone agrees.

Therefore, Bush is very powerful in U.S. home affairs, but less so than Blair in British domestic politics.

Your Friendly A-Level Politics Student.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by MrPeach
Do Bush and Blair have much individual power or does whay they say and do just come from a group of advisors and they're just being used as figure heads.

That's a complete judgement call and is, therefore, unanswerable, considering we'll never know how much Blair and Bush act on advice. it would depend on whether you were a big believer in eminence grise conspiracy theories or not, really.

Both of them will obviously recieve lots, and foreign policy is probably determined by advice to some extent at the very least.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by General Geiger
Blair could push through any piece of legislation he wished, as long as it wasn't utterly absurd and didn't clash with anything previously written.

Every majority government under the British system can. There's nothing special there. I could count the number of times a government lost a vote in the Commons in the last century on one hand.

Quite frankly, I don't know why everybody starts jumping up and down about Blair's majority, as if it allows him to do 'special' things, not generally seen under the British system, because it's complete ******** - Bush's current position is more unique with this regard.

Blair obviously has the most power. Any comparison of just about any PM and President will yield the same answer, because, simply, the British system allows for a more centralised, dominant way of going about things by those in charge - not necessarily a good thing. Very probably a bad thing indeed.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Nodrog
I dont think this is correct, do you have a source?

As far as I know, the Supreme Court can overrule both President and Congress.

Yes; but the Supreme Court can only overrule the President or Congress when they have violated the law or the Constitution (and of course, only when it's challenged through the courts). Congress can change the law and amend the Constitution (the latter requiring ratification by 3/4ths of the States).

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by Tactitus

Yes; but the Supreme Court can only overrule the President or Congress when they have violated the law or the Constitution (and of course, only when it's challenged through the courts). Congress can change the law and amend the Constitution (the latter requiring ratification by 3/4ths of the States).

The Constitution is a toughie; Britain has what is commonly referred to as an "uncodified constitution" - note the small "c". It is not collated into one document. It is spread across innumerable sources and, apparently, if collected into one place in hardcopy would amount to a pile of paper one hundred feet high.

The U.S. Constitution has remained so effective because it is an outline. The details are left to be filled in, by the states or the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has immense leverage to interpret the Constitution as it sees fit - I cannot bring any examples to mind offhand, but on many occasions over the last century the Constitution has been interpreted in ways which almost defy belief. Interpretation - bending the meaning somewhat but never extremely - is the cornerstone of what the Supreme Court does. Interpretation of the Constitution gives the American political system the flexibility we - the British - gain in our parliamentary system by having an uncodified constitution. The American Constitution is a framework, but - particularly with regard to the Amendments - it is a very bendy one.

Therefore you say that the Supreme Court can only overrule the President or Congress when they have violated the law or the Constitution. With regard to the Constitution, you have failed to take into account the leeway the Supreme Court takes in its interpretations. In the Constitution there is an "elastic clause" (I can't remember it word for word offhand. I know that's inexcusable for an argument of this complexity, but I can't be bothered to look in my folder), which gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution as it sees fit, as I've wittered on about.

This is perfectly understandable on your part. Without wishing to sound patronising, the whole thing's quite complicated.

So, erm . . . the point I'm trying to make is, erm . . .

I don't actually know. I just hope you're all interested enough by the above to excuse my patronising and supercilious know-all attitude. You answered Nodrog's point pretty well.

Originally posted by Marilyn MansonEvery majority government under the British system can. There's nothing special there. I could count the number of times a government lost a vote in the Commons in the last century on one hand.

Quite frankly, I don't know why everybody starts jumping up and down about Blair's majority, as if it allows him to do 'special' things, not generally seen under the British system, because it's complete ******** - Bush's current position is more unique with this regard.

Blair obviously has the most power. Any comparison of just about any PM and President will yield the same answer, because, simply, the British system allows for a more centralised, dominant way of going about things by those in charge - not necessarily a good thing. Very probably a bad thing indeed.

You're very largely right. I've no argument there. Nothing I'd even particularly like to witter on about.

But consider a situation in which the President, somehow, had even more heavy support across the country - if he had more than 66% support in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and had three-quarters of all the states under his own party control, and had something like 9/11 and the ensuing War on Terror to back him up with the Great Unwashed Masses. Would he then be as powerful as a British PM? Or would the inherent vetoing power of the judicial system keep him in check? Possibly it would by definition, it being where the buck stops if any funny business is going on with legislation. But might the judges feel pressured by the overbearing party support for the legislation, even if they're theoretically impartial? It's all a mess of possible factors.

Oh dear. I've wittered again. Would anyone care for a drink?

[Chrism]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
I could count the number of times a government lost a vote in the Commons in the last century on one hand.

You have a hand with 125 fingers on? I'm impressed.