 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Marcus
As I recall, it was the frenchman Montesquieu with his Trias Politica who first came up with this, not the Americans. And this Trias Politica is the basis of many of the world's democracies, not just that of the USA.
The "constitutional republic" you are describing, isn't only found in the USA.
So I guess I still don't understand what sets the US apart from other nations, in this instance. |
Saint Marcus, Montesquieu is to be applaud for advancing political theory. Nations that have adopted a constitution with three independent co-equal branches of government with a Supreme Court more powerful than the other two branches are to be applauded. (BTW, which countries do you consider to have this structure?)
But many, if not most democracies in the world (I would include communist governments in this camp) are of the UK variety. With no real constitution, no "Supreme" Court or independently elected president, the majority can and often do run roughshod over liberty, suppress opposition parties and abuse minorities. This can happen even in a constitutional republic, but it is much more difficult due to the independent judiciary that presides over the other two branches. (When FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court becuase they held some of the New Deal legislation unconstitutional, there was a virtual revolt in the U.S.)
Democracies can be just as tyrannical as dictatorships.
I have no idea whether the possibility of Palestine being formed into the single state based on the U.S. federal model was ever seriously discussed. Everone seems to assume that the government of a greater Palestine will be of the UK variety. I can fully understand why a minority Jewish population would never agree to live in such a "democracy." Ditto the Arabs if they are in the minority. Either could simply abolish the rights of the minority and there would be no recourse other than war.
A two state solution seems to be the only viable solution. Israel can continue to provide for a right of return of Jews to Israel; Palestine of their refugees to their territory.
A better solution for the Palestinians, though, would be to reunite with Jordan. Prior to 1922 and between 1948 and 1967 it was one territory. I suspect the obtstacle to this reuinion is the thinking that any new government has to be a UK-style democracy rather than a U.S.-style federation.
Ned
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Nations that have adopted a constitution with three independent co-equal branches of government with a Supreme Court more powerful than the other two branches are to be applauded. |
Well, Holland for one. A small neo-nazi party here wanted to hold a protest march, but the authorities didn't allow it. The supreme court stepped in and ruled that the march should go on.
quote:
With no real constitution, no "Supreme" Court or independently elected president, the majority can and often do run roughshod over liberty, suppress opposition parties and abuse minorities. |
The Dutch system is completely different from the American system, and I don't think Holland is always as "democratic" as it should be, but:
- we have a written constitution. Which, I believe, can only be changed if 2/3rd of the Parliament and Senate agree, and (though I'm not sure about this) new elections have been held.
- we have a supreme court which may (and does) overrule political decisions.
- no directly elected president, but I don't see the relevance of having one. Since American presidents are also members of a party, which they dependent on, I really don't see the big significance.
- No single party has ever(?) gotten the mayority of the votes, and a coalition governement always needs to make compromises (thus one group can't dominate another too much)
- Minorities cannot be oppressed, it's against Article 1 of the Constitution. That is why minorities here have so many rights, unlike in some countries (just compare gay (who are a minority) rights in Holland and the USA.)
- The Constitution also guarantees that anyone can form a political party. The only exception are parties which are instigating hatred towards minorities, or who are "undemocratic" in principle. This is the lesson we learned from WW2, when Hitler rose to power in the parliament and used democracy to form an autocracy.
Like I said, I don't think Holland is the pinacle of "democracy" (or constitutional republic as you put it), but I don't see the big difference between the US and Holland in this regard (despite having quite different political systems).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
A better solution for the Palestinians, though, would be to reunite with Jordan. Prior to 1922 and between 1948 and 1967 it was one territory. I suspect the obtstacle to this reuinion is the thinking that any new government has to be a UK-style democracy rather than a U.S.-style federation. |
A Palestinian dictatorship is more likely to happen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Marcus
like most of the Likud party, including Netanyahu. |
Care to remind me the reasons Netanyahu and the Likud center opposed the creation of a Pal state?
Because Palestinians are just Arabs who happen to be in Eretz Yisrael and should move to Syria, or because establishing a state now will be a clear threat to the Israeli security(from obvious reasons)?
If Netanyahu had truly opposed to a Palestinian state he would've burned the Oslo papers back in 1996.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:19
|
|
Imran : yes that makes you anti-kurd as well. For a long time I am a big proponent of a country for kurds. They're people as well. They're persecuted everywhere else. They need a place to call home.
keep digging watson.
quote:
A better solution for the Palestinians, though, would be to reunite with Jordan. Prior to 1922 and between 1948 and 1967 it was one territory. I suspect the obtstacle to this reuinion is the thinking that any new government has to be a UK-style democracy rather than a U.S.-style federation
|
I suspect the obstacle to this reunion is a clan of warlords that took charge there and established a monarchial dynasty there.
Basically, in the 19th century , The main small clashes that were around what was called then Palestine, and now is called Israel, the West Bank , and Jordan , were between the phalahs , which are the farmers , that call themselves now "Palestinians" , and the Beduins , the semi-nomadic shepherds, the part of the population that is more loyal to the Monarchy, because the monarch is a former beduine himself, from a different place , of course. The maximum level of organization was an extended family, which would sometimes live in a village of it's own. This was the picture during the 19th century, with things begining to change only in the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century , with Jews coming in, and then Britain occupying the land, and first factories created by jews. ( end of 19th century )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Marcus
He claims "because of security reasons", but that doesn't make much sense since he said he'd "never" allow the existance of a Palestinian state, not even if there really is peace. Others who oppose a Pal state still think they should get one, when a real peace is established. But by saying "never" I find the security argument a bit misleading. |
You're partially right.
But before making generalisations about the Likud dont forget that this vote was much more political than ideological.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
What in God's name are you talking about? Why on Earth should all Scots agree with me? What difference does that make?
Your post said that the UK model allowed this:
"the majority can and often do run roughshod over liberty, suppress opposition parties and abuse minorities."
The American model allowed for the exact same thing. It wasn't in the least bit more difficult to kill the Indians and enslave the blacks, than it was for Britain and the Irish etc. |
Uniting all power in one body was to our founding fathers the very definition of tyranny. Read the Federalist papers, particularly, No.s 47, 50 and 51, IIRC. If the legislature is all powerful, the majority can do what it pleases. It can, for example, establish one party rule: most communist countries fit this definition.
As well, having the chief executive dependent upon the legislature can lead to weakness, particularly if the majority is composed of a coalition. I found it particularly bizzare that Churchill was relieved exactly when he was most needed, the Potsdam conference.
Dividing the powers provides checks against tryanny. This is self evident.
As to the UK, clearly Parliament abused America, Scotland, and Ireland and religious minorities. That it is "better" now, does not change history.
America did not abuse Native Americans as citizens. They were independent nations that largely made war on the United States.
Slavery, of course, is another issue. We "solved" that problem only by having a civil war. Racism remained strong in America, particularly in the South. Discrimination, however, was largely eliminated in the U.S. by the Supreme Court.
Again, the fundamental thesis of our founding fathers is that democracies can be tryannies. It is the separation of powers and an independent judiciary under a constitution that acts to prevent tyrannical abuses.
Ned
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
As to the UK, clearly Parliament abused America, Scotland, and Ireland and religious minorities. That it is "better" now, does not change history. |
Dodgy history aside, it was made 'better' without resorting to a cloned American system.
quote:
America did not abuse Native Americans as citizens. They were independent nations that largely made war on the United States. |
Yeah, USA was on the defensive the whole time, never broke any treaties. Anyway, weren't Native American children taken and 're-educated'?
quote:
Slavery, of course, is another issue. We "solved" that problem only by having a civil war. Racism remained strong in America, particularly in the South. Discrimination, however, was largely eliminated in the U.S. by the Supreme Court. |
With all the 'checks and balances' why did it take a civil war to sort it out? And you don't need a Supreme court to eliminate discrimination.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:19
|
|
A Bill presented by or on behalf of the King that has not yet been passed by the Second Chamber or by a joint session of the Parliament may be amended by the Chamber or the joint session as the case may be on the proposal of one or more members or by the Government.
Of course the Dutch would have to solve their problems through joint sessions, I imagine the entire parlament lighting up a couple until everybody agrees to decriminalize something. (Stereotype mode off)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eli
Yes. Saying that the Jews, unlike any other ehtnic group, do not have the right to have a state is anti-semitism. Opposing to Israel's moves on the other hand, is not. |
Eli your mind is so tightly shuttered it must cause you great pain to be confronted with reality.
So if what you assert is true then the Sarmaritons deserve a state in the Middle East.
The Palestinians do.
The Maranite Lebanese do.
The Islamamic Lebanese do.
The Iranian Jews do.
The Ethiopian Jews deserve one Ethiopia.
The dozens of Amerind Tribes all do in North America AND Canada.
The Mayans do in Mexico.
The thousands of Amazonian tribes all do.
The Earth with a have thousands of states. All fighting and killing their neighbors to establish their god given rights to a state with the largest borders they ever thought they had for a few years millenia ago.
I did not magicaly become a jew hater by thinking the Israel should never have been formed. I am no anti-Semite and its a vile lie to claim that disagreeing with you makes me one.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-05-2002 04:49
|