[neo_hermes]

Pecan, Strawberry, and Cherry pies are good

[Sandwich]

Remind me what GOP stands for again?

[mikhael]

GOP: Grand Old Party. AKA the Republican Party.

[phreak]

yet they are the younger of the two.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by mikhael
GOP: Grand Old Party. AKA the Republican Party.

Huh! I actually never knew that.

[Grey Wolf]

On a side note, which do you prefer: Presidential Republics, or the British-style Parliamentary Republic?

[mikhael]

Parliamentary republics confuse me. I honestly don't understand how they work.

Presidential republics like the US has are straightforward and simple. You got this guy. You've got him for four years. Then you do it again. And you can't ever have the same guy more than twice. Underneath that you've got one big mob and one little mob and each of the three groups can tell the other two bugger off.

[Knight Templar]

Ain't Parliamentry Governments bassically the same thing, just without the president bit? At least that's the impression I get whenever I see a British Parliament Session on CNN...

[Krackers87]

Troll n. - the type of people in Starcraft who you wished you knew where they lived so you can go beat them in the face with a sharp ended pvc tube.

[an0n]

Parliamentary govs are just like Presidential govs but the top guy needs to ask Parliament before making any big decisions. I don't think he's classed as being the supreme commander of the armed forces either.

[mikhael]

What balances Parliament? IE: who gets to tell Parliament when they're out of line?

The way the US system works:
- when the president is out of line, Congress can nullify it with a bill, or the Supreme Court can declare what he's doing unconstitutional and/or illegal.

- If the Supreme Court is out of line, Congress can either change the law, or change the constitution. The president can selectively override Supreme Court decisions.

- If Congress is out of line, the President can veto them, or the Supreme Court can declare their actions unconstitutional.

Of course this all breaks down when one party or the other controls all three branches.

[an0n]

If the PM want's to do anything major, he has to ask Parliament. If the Prime Minister does something and ****s up, Parliament over-rule him. If he keeps doing it, Parliament depose him.

Parliament has final say over just about everything, they leave the day-to-day stuff to the Cabinet and the PM, the courts can 'interpret' laws.

And before any law even gets close to being passed it's gotta go through massive checks, get passed in the Commons and then get passed by the House Of Lords. So they're always perfectly defined to begin with, thus the courts get no say in the matter.


So basically, the PM has day-to-day control but Parliament can always *****-slap him and once they've voted on something their word is final.

[mikhael]

So there's no institutional, in-progress, day-to-day checks and balances? That description allows for situations where Parliament can pass a law legalizing murder and no one can do anything about it.

[Knight Templar]

Hey, we could always use a little more legal murder, eh?

[neo_hermes]

....

[an0n]

Yup. If Parliament wanted to legalize murder, they could.

But they'd answer for it at the next election.

[icespeed]

so in the end all the checks are down to the people who vote. in democratic systems, anyway.

[an0n]

Not really. If Parliament decided that it'd be a good idea to change the constitution of the UK, got the 70% (IIRC) needed to do so and turned us into a militaristic, dictatorial, war-mongering nuclear power then the public wouldn't get much of a say in the matter.

No system is above abuse, but the way the UK works means that so many people would have to be involved in any coup or action against the people's interests that it'd end up actually being the will of the people.

[karajorma]

The problem with the checks and balances system America has is that you can elect a republican president and a democratic congress. Then you end up with a president who can't do anything because every law he passes gets struck down by congress.

In the UK the government always has a majority (even if it's slim) but if it tries to pass an unpopular law it would face a backbench revolt. MP's often feel more obliged to their constituency than their party in the UK because it isn't as hard to be an independant MP in the UK if you have popular support (compared with the US where you probably won't get anywhere unless you're with the two big parties). If an MP feels that helping pass a law would get him voted out next term he'll probably go against his own party.

Both systems allow stupid laws to be passed. In America you could pass one if you had the president, congress and the supreme court in favour of it. In the UK you'd need the House of Commons and House of Lords behind it (and the Queen actually because although she rubber stamps everything she does actually have the power to stop any law being passed even if it hasn't been used in centuries).
 The numbers of people you'd need to get laws through in both systems are about the same.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by an0n
Yup. If Parliament wanted to legalize murder, they could.

But they'd answer for it at the next election.

They'd be murdered before the next election.