Originally posted by generalissimoWhat is "this"?
is anyone in western europe doing this?
Parliamentary debates. Pursuing policies and programmes that garner popular support. Voting. Seeking to enact legislation. Putting issues to a referendum. Politicians seeking re-election.
Is that "this"?
Originally posted by FMFThe question is the methodology of altering a Constitution. Democracy or Republic? In a Democracy a simple majority can alter the Constitution. Something of that sort brought Adolph Hitler into dictatorial power.
There are no term limits in the U.K., France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Sweden etc.etc. I imagine the list would include most countries in the world. There would be terms limits if these countries changed the law. Meanwhile coutries with term limits can change their constitutions, can't they?
A written Constitution, with a difficult amendment process protects the government from the type of changes which happen on a whim.
Originally posted by no1marauderThis illustrates the dangers of an unbridled democracy. A Constitution which can be altered so easily isn't much of a Constitution.
He is? From your link:
Venezuelan lawmakers on Wednesday approved amendments to the constitution that would allow President Hugo Chávez to run for re-election indefinitely, [b]the final step before the proposal goes before voters in a referendum.
The voters get the final say. The proposals narrowly defeated in December ...[text shortened]... or support term limits. This referendum will be a straight up or down vote on term limits only.[/b]
You don't like the previous vote, try it again, and maybe you can cheat better this time. Something as serious as altering a Constitution ought to require more than a referendum called by the legislature.
It simply grants too much power to the party or politicians in power.
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree conceptually on term limits, however if they are a part of a Constitution, I can't find fault with them.
Venezuela has free elections. You prefer no elections at all in South America rather than having the "ignorant peasants" getting a vote, but hey you can't always get what you want.
Personally, I've always thought term limits were contrary to the very concept of representative government.
A more effective way of discouraging long term career politicians or lifetime Presidents is to limit the pay and benefits of the job. Of course these guy vote for their own pay, health care and retirement benefits.
Originally posted by normbenignSo that would make you an advocate of Bridled Democracy then, would it? And would someone like Barack Obama, whom you characterize as a kindred spirit of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, be able to get elected in this Bridled Democracy of yours?
This illustrates the dangers of an unbridled democracy.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFInterestingly you stretch my statement beyond all reason.
So that would make you an advocate of Bridled Democracy then, would it? And would someone like Barack Obama, whom you characterize as a kindred spirit of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, be able to get elected in this Bridled Democracy of yours?
Barack Obama, and all US Presidents are not elected by direct democracy, but by winning the electoral votes of States, empowering the voters in some small States, which could effectively be ignored entirely in a direct democracy (unbridled).
Regardless of my view of Obama and his ideology, he met the requirements for being elected President. He can't however, just go to Congress and get a referendum to get rid of term limits. A Constitutional amendment, like the 22nd Amendment which limited Presidential terms to two, required ratification by 2/3rds of the State legislatures, not a whimsical will of a temporary majority.
That would make me an advocate of a Constitutionally limited republic, with limited use of democracy as an input of the people.
Originally posted by normbenignInterestingly I stretch your statement beyond all reason? On the contrary, I believe that your statement asserting that President Elect Barack Obama is a kindred spirit of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, was a statement beyond all reason. People need to bear it in mind when they hear you put forth on history, ideology, politics and democracy. So, even in the system you favour, 'bridled' democracy with limited input from the people, a kindred spirit of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis can be elected. Presumably you are against someone who is a kindred spirit of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis getting elected. Presumably almost everybody is. And yet you are criticizing Venezuala's system for adjusting its own system so that it might then be able to elect a kindred spirit of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Is it a case of the USA beating Venezuela to it? I ask you because you are clearly so thoughtful about tyranny, Nazism, Obama, limiting the voice of citizens etc.
Interestingly you stretch my statement beyond all reason. Barack Obama, and all US Presidents are not elected by direct democracy, but by winning the electoral votes of States, empowering the voters in some small States, which could effectively be ignored entirely in a direct democracy (unbridled).
Originally posted by FMF"I believe that your statement asserting that President Elect Barack Obama is a kindred spirit of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis,"
Interestingly I stretch your statement beyond all reason? On the contrary, I believe that your statement asserting that President Elect Barack Obama is a kindred spirit of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, [b]was a statement beyond all reason. People need to bear it in mind when they hear you put forth on history, ideology, politics and democracy. So, even in the ...[text shortened]... u are clearly so thoughtful about tyranny, Nazism, Obama, limiting the voice of citizens etc.[/b]
I don't recall the specific context of that statement, but I presume it to be simply that National Socialism (Nazi) is very much similar to the stated values of the new American President. I also believe that Barak Obama is aware of the limitations of the US Constitution, which limits him where Adolph Hitler wasn't limited.
Because of those limitations, I am not that concerned about who is elected President. I'd have preferred Ron Paul, but he wasn't on the ballot.
You presume too much. Obviously, a majority of Germans were willing to vote for Adolph Hitler. And the German Constitution didn't prevent him from getting dictatorial powers. The US Constitution prevents GW Bush, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama from doing what Hitler did in Germany simply by appealing to the temporary desires of a democratic mob.
Originally posted by generalissimoReally? how shocking...
there was a referendum a while ago about this, chavez lost.
now, he's ignoring the people's will to maintain democracy because he'll use his legislative body (which is controlled by the left) to change the rules.
....guess what the people in Palastine had a democratic election..but the USA did not like who they democratley elected..so guess what happened next|?
Originally posted by normbenignThe same Constitution that put term limits in place allowed amendments by vote of the National Assembly and then majority vote in a referendum.
This illustrates the dangers of an unbridled democracy. A Constitution which can be altered so easily isn't much of a Constitution.
You don't like the previous vote, try it again, and maybe you can cheat better this time. Something as serious as altering a Constitution ought to require more than a referendum called by the legislature.
It simply grants too much power to the party or politicians in power.
I don't see anything sacred about the particular mechanisms of government so long as they conform to democratic principles. Of course, Fundamental Rights are beyond the power of a Constitution to grant or abolish.
Originally posted by no1marauderfree elections?
Venezuela has free elections. You prefer no elections at all in South America rather than having the "ignorant peasants" getting a vote, but hey you can't always get what you want.
Personally, I've always thought term limits were contrary to the very concept of representative government.
that doesn't mean the opposition is free from left-wing bullying.
You prefer no elections at all in South America rather than having the "ignorant peasants"
Not at all, however anyone (who's smart enough) can see that Hugo is just the typical populist, controlling the masses with his charisma, but behind that mask his only goal is to remain in power.
Originally posted by FMFtrying (through democratic means) to get to power, then abusing the system in order to remain in power.
What is "this"?
Parliamentary debates. Pursuing policies and programmes that garner popular support. Voting. Seeking to enact legislation. Putting issues to a referendum. Politicians seeking re-election.
Is that "this"?