Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by yaxomoxay, Jan 22, 2017.
A five min video everyone should watch.
I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone
interesting video though
I've heard this fiddle playing before
"Secretary of State Madeleine Albright spoke of America as the "indispensable nation," without which no good could happen. It was a nation with a mission, a manifest destiny stretching back over centuries..."We stand tall," Albright said, "We see further into the future." "It was our duty, as Americans, to carry freedom and democracy forward into the world. "Humanitarian intervention gained new currency, as international law and as U.S. policy, …
During these years, the rest of the world began to view American power with misgiving."
The Year That Changed The World - Michael Meyers
Uh? That's not what Scalia is arguing at all.
He's arguing what makes America great . and Maddy already told me.
Madeline is discussing the need for expansion (direct or indirect). Scalia is discussing why the American framework is different.
if they ever make a movie of Scalia (and I hope they never do) Danny Devito would be perfect for the role.
Never change Citi, keep these classless comments coming. They really show your true colors!
They're like long-lost twins separated at birth.
One went on to become a vulgar comedian ... the other, a famous movie and TV star.
While Scalia looks down his nose at European government, I find his views self-serving and myopic. For instance, he claims that the U.S. Senate and House share a unique relationship, where each checks the other, shaping legislation that can pass both chambers. And while that can be true, in cases where one party rules both, that check is mostly a formality. And when one party rules congress and the presidency, those checks are virtually absent.
Scalia ignores the fact that parliamentary governments are built with coalitions of parties that don't necessarily share the same political ends, so his desired check of having to tailor legislation to the needs of many interests is built into a parliamentary system, while in the U.S., it sometimes isn't.
I also don't understand him belittling "no confidence" votes. How is that worse than our system where in Obama's final year, Republicans simply refused to entertain a Supreme Court nominee? The check that Scalia values is a Senate approving or disapproving a nominee, not completely refusing to do one's constitutional duty. If government is incapable of performing that duty, then I see nothing wrong with dissolving it, as opposed to stagnating for extended periods of time waiting for the next scheduled election.
But the main issue that Scalia ignores in his desire to pump up America is that our Founders built in a system that rewards two party dominance. Despite the fact that people commonly complain about wanting to break away from it, there is no pathway to changing this paradigm. Proportional representation allows parties to reflect the diverse political nature of the people, and the coalitions necessary to build a government compel these parties to cooperate in ways that we can only dream about here in the U.S.
One only needs to look around the world to see that America isn't that shining city on a hill that everyone looks up to. There are other nations that have civil liberties, standards of living, quality of life, and social institutions that are on par, or exceed what we have here. U.S. exceptionalism is a concept for the insecure and insular, and there are plenty of examples that demonstrate that the U.S. government, as historically successful as it may be, is not the only (or necessarily best) way to run a country.
Trump gets to put in 1-3 more just like Scalia. That thought alone made me vote for him. That thought alone makes me smile.
That thought scares the hell out of me!!
I'm going to withold my ire at the presidents SC picks until I see whom he actually nominates. I have a feeling his NY liberal side is going to weigh in on this
Thank you for your long reply, and thank you for calling me back on my own thread which I had disgracefully abandoned.
I don't think that Scalia is ignoring the differences of a parliamentary system with the American system. He's highlighting the fact that American freedoms are not a direct descendant of the signed parchment. In other words, while the US certainly have and need a Constitution, the actual implementation depends on the structure of the government. It is no secret, for example, that in most European countries censorship is a reality, as it is the limitation of ideologies; this include Germany and Italy, even if their constitution contains provisions for freedom of speech and of the press.
I think that Scalia is making the important point that without contrast any system - including the American one - risks to end up in a de-fact oligarchy, or at least it is bound to cause a strain to the rights of the people. He mentions the parliamentary systems not as inferiors, but as systems that can see that kind of problem more often than the US. It is obvious that a Prime Minister will have to appease the majority, therefore Congress, in a much more direct way than an American President (of course, generally speaking).
If you listen well, Scalia also claims that the American system is bound to gridlock. He tries to put a positive spin on it, and I agree and disagree with him at the same time. We certainly don't want "feeling laws," where the feeling of the moment prevails over rationality, but at the same time I don't want a government that can't pass a single law (or a budget) because there are political fights.
As for the two party system, I think that it's not a problem per se, however I miss the existence of a third party that is not interested in the Executive but only in the Legislative. In other words, I miss a Legislative Party that can oversee Congress instead of focusing on the Executive that yes, it's built for huge homogenous parties. A third party would need to win just a few seats in the Senate and the House to become relevant enough to change policy.