Views on the US Constitution

[aussieboy]

What is your opinion on the US form of government? I don't mean democracy, but the method of representation, the so-called 'presidential' structure of government. How would you compare it to European-style parliamentary systems?

 

[Abaddon]

I think it sucks.

 

[tombeef]

In all honesty our system is not that bad. It allows Abaddon to say it sucks, it allows me to be well off, live an ok life, say what I want. Granted, the increase in government powers worries me, and, while the Constitution has it's fundamentals correct, freedom and all, it's gone for a long time with little change, even though society has undergone a lot of change in over 225 years.

 

[Inqvisitor]

Out-dated. The U.S. government today would not be able to survive if you tried to make it conform to constitutional limits.

 

[Perfection]

Finding the optimal government may be a nice exercise, but when it comes to the U.S. system, I think it's prudent to pretty much leave "well enough" alone.

 

[Abaddon]

i think its too resistant to change- updating mainly. Its an excuse for gun culture.

 

[Elrohir]

Short of Jesus coming back early to handle US internal affairs, I think it's the best government that we could have. Which means it sucks, just not as bad as any of the other governments.

 

[Cuivienen]

There are significant problems with it, mostly in the portions that govern elections and apportionment. The Senate and the Electoral College are complete jokes.

The 2nd Amendment is the only other part I tend to disagree with, and it isn't inherently bad, just often misinterpreted.

 

[tombeef]

The electoral college really needs to go.

 

[Cuivienen]

What is your opinion on the US form of government? I don't mean democracy, but the method of representation, the so-called 'presidential' structure of government. How would you compare it to European-style parliamentary systems?

Specifically about President v. Premier, I prefer Presidential, though I also wish that Congress would show more of a backbone from time to time. I would be an advocate of barring the President from having an affiliation with a political party.

 

[bhsup]

The presidential system is interesting in that it's been remarkably stable here in the US, but many other nations seem to have trouble gaining stability with it. For whatever reason, the parlimentary system would probably work better in nations without a long history of political stability.

 

[luiz]

For whatever reason, the parlimentary system would probably work better in nations without a long history of political stability.

The opposite, I'd say.
Presidentialism is inherently more stable than Parliamentarism, it is in their very nature. A President is elected for a fixed mandate and stays for the fixed mandate. The unstable nations with presidentialism would be even moreso with parliamentarism.

That said, I don't think Parliamentarism is bad. But it sure requires much more political stability.

 

[Cuivienen]

The opposite, I'd say.
Presidentialism is inherently more stable than Parliamentarism, it is in their very nature. A President is elected for a fixed mandate and stays for the fixed mandate. The unstable nations with presidentialism would be even moreso with parliamentarism.

That said, I don't think Parliamentarism is bad. But it sure requires much more political stability.

I would tend to agree with VRWCAgent. While parliamentary systems technically do not put a limit on the length of tenure, the premier is directly responsible to the parliament and, unless the majority of parliament is also autocratic or corrupt, it is difficult for the premier to seize too much power. A Presidential system, however, vests more power in the executive to begin with and gives the legislature less control over it, leading to a higher chance of autocracy or corruption.

Many presidential systems also do not put a limit on the tenure of presidents, though the most well-known, the US system, does.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

The US constitution is terrific. One of the best documents ever written. It's just that the United States government doesn't always follow what's in the constitution or (more often) pretends that there is more in it than there actually is.

 

[blackheart]

It'd be one hell of a dorm poster. Other than that, maybe it should be rewritten so its in vernacular instead of 18th century language.

 

[JohnRM]

The US constitution is terrific. One of the best documents ever written. It's just that the United States government doesn't always follow what's in the constitution or (more often) pretends that there is more in it than there actually is.

That is about all that I can say about it.

I will add that it is the longest-standing written constitution in the world.

 

[Babbler]

A wonderful document; I remember reading as a kid in the World Book, footnotes and all. While I don't think it should reveared as some Americans do, I think it should be respected.

Still, I have some doubts about the presidential systems in general. The problem is that it was designed without political parties in mind. And, love them or hate them, they are hear to say. The Parliamentary (British) and semi-Presidential (French) system were designed with parties in mind. Well, that not true -- they evolved, and so they adjusted to parties. In fact, they wouldn't function without parties at all.

 

[warpus]

I'm confused - is this thread supposed to be about the U.S. constitution as stated in the thread title - or about the U.S. style of government - as stated in the OP??

 

[Brian_B]

Assuming the latter I don't have a preference one way or the other. Although the presidential system can result in more gridlock there's a certain value in that.

 

[Babbler]

BTW, here a copy of the US consititution.