View Single Post
Old 05-30-2008, 10:10 PM   #25 (permalink)
Cynthetiq
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
As I stated in the Hillary Clinton a Supreme Court Justice? when you look at the separation of powers and the checks and balances you'll find that it is not viable at all.

US Constitution Articles I-III   click to show 


Quote:
View:
Source: Constitution Center
posted with the TFP thread generator


The Constitution establishes a system of separation of powers among the three branches of government. The framers of the Constitution derived their ideas about the separation of powers from the French philosopher Montesquieu, and they divided the U.S. government into the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Article I gives Congress the power to make the laws; Article II gives the president the power to enforce the laws; and Article III gives the judiciary the power to interpret the laws.

But the framers did not make the boundaries between those branches absolute. Instead, they created a system of checks and balances, in which each branch exercised some restraint on the power of the other. For instance, Congress has the power to pass laws, but the president can veto those laws. The president can make treaties, but the Senate must approve them. Judges have life tenure to give them independence, but the president and the Senate together select judges. James Madison described the principle of checks and balances in Federalist 51: “Ambition must be made to counter ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.”

This system of checks and balances is so intricately woven throughout the Constitution that some scholars believe it negates the separation of powers. According to political scientist Richard Neustadt: “The constitutional convention of 1787 is supposed to have created a government of ‘separated powers.’ It did nothing of the sort. Rather, it created a government of separated institutions sharing powers.”
separation of powers the constitutional doctrine of dividing governmental power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches

checks and balances the constitutional doctrine in which each branch of government shares some of the powers of the other branches in order to limit their actions

Visual Primer for the separation of powers and checks and balances   click to show 


Will, if you read and understand Articles I-III of the United States Constitution, you'd find it's not viable at all for politicians to make campaign promises under oath. In fact it is prohibitive for them to do so since it will clearly limit what they are able to promise. A presidential candidates cannot state with certainty they will create healthcare system for the entire nation, as the Legislative branch has to create the law to make that possible. Conversely the Legislative branch candidates cannot state they with certainty that they will create a healthcare system for the entire nation as the president has the power to veto the bill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
They will just add the word "try" to everything. That way if they fail they can say well I tried but....
That's just about what will happen, so then you've created more beauracracy in getting people to swear under oath. Now even if this were a possibilty, you'd find that someone would challenge the idea in court. It could eventually make it to the Supreme Court of the United States and be decided unconstitutional since there are no provisions for swearing under oath as part of the selecting/electing process in Article I Section 4. While it could be construed as a state's rights, you'd have to believe that some states allowed promises under oath and others did not. On that supposition, would you really have "better" democracy in those states that allowed it? How would you categorize or measure it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
The idea is to force them to stop making promises they have no intention of keeping. So, in the tax hypothetical, a candidate couldn't say "I won't raise taxes" unless he or she was committed to that 100% no matter what happens.
In the simple example of not raising taxes, what happens when the candidate now the elected offical comes to find that the budget is tight and there is no wiggle room on anything. A natural disaster strikes and funds need to be raised ala the 1989 Loma Prieta, California earthquake.

Quote:
The quake caused an estimated $6 billion in property damage, becoming the most expensive natural disaster in U.S. history at the time. It was the largest earthquake to occur on the San Andreas Fault since the great 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Private donations poured in to aid relief efforts and on October 26, President George H.W. Bush signed a $3.45 billion earthquake relief package for California.
Quote:
NYtimes.com
The California Legislature, heeding political and legal constraints on spending, today passed and sent to the Governor a temporary increase in the state's 6 percent sales tax by a quarter of 1 percent to pay for earthquake damage repairs and provide relief to victims.

The bill, one of several being considered by a special session of the Legislature, was approved in the Assembly by 57 to 17 and in the Senate by 34 to 2.
If any one of them stated they will not raise taxes under oath, all of them lied, or all the people who needed relief would have gotten none.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360