Many years ago, working in the draughting room in London,
I was very surprised that POTUS is both ceremonial and political head of state.
One of them, probably Nixon but possibly Kennedy, had to leave a state dinner
for a little while. Following up just a little, and realizing that the Prez.
the House and the Senate all had to be in agreement to get anything done.
Living in a system where the Prime Minister's party is always in ascendance,
this seemed very strange.
On studying the Constitution for my application for
citizenship I confirmed my view that this was not a sensibly responsive system
but it is, sometimes, a knee-jerk system.
I wondered why people put so much trust in this document. It
was put together by a bunch of traitors. Politicians who had co-opted a ground
roots movement. If they were treacherous with the King, why should they be
expected to be faithful to the Republic? It still boggles my mind that there is
a statue of George Washington in London.
Now, the American side of me looks askance at the British
system, it is alarming, it is based on trust. The Constitution is the body of
law. If a party in power was strong enough, they could eliminate elections and
stay in power; but it has never happened, the trust element holds.
I miss an independent "Speaker of the House" an MP who
gives up his or her political operation for objective judgments on procedures.
I miss the PM's ability to call an early election when things are going nowhere
Comments rated to be Good Answers:
Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers: