Should countries be run like business corporations?

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,227
Dispargum
#31
Nixon was removed by the threat of impeachment. Impeachment is one of those things made unnecessary by its very existence. Because presidents can be impeached they generally behave themselves. If there was no such thing as impeachment more presidents would abuse their power.

I like that you want to de-politicize the chief executive. Do you know that you are projecting the model of most American city governments onto the federal government? The mayor and the city council hire and supervise the city manager. But the entire council and the mayor are all elected officials. It's rare (impossible) that the entire board are all members of the same party. The city council also has a major legislative function, passing city ordinances and controlling the budget. This gives council members considerable influence over the city bureaucracy. I doubt you can completely de-politicize a national CEO the way you can a city manager. You can remove the need to raise money, but political philosophy will always influence policy making. Conservatives will want a conservative CEO while liberals will want a liberal CEO. That will never change. The liberal-conservative or Republican-Democrat dynamic is less of a factor in city politics than national politics.

I don't like the idea of putting the attorney general (or anyone else) over the courts. I think the courts work just fine the way they are. If there's any room for improvement, maybe find a way to de-politicize judges, but good luck with that one.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
2,560
Las Vegas, NV USA
#32
I like that you want to de-politicize the chief executive. Do you know that you are projecting the model of most American city governments onto the federal government?
Cities are incorporated entities after all.:)


I don't like the idea of putting the attorney general (or anyone else) over the courts. I think the courts work just fine the way they are. If there's any room for improvement, maybe find a way to de-politicize judges, but good luck with that one.
The AG is not over the courts. There is a normal relationship with the courts. I haven't thought through the judicial system but I favor putting the prosecutorial function within the judicial branch which is self governing under the constitution. In Britain judges are appointed by a judicial commission. In any case I don't think judges or prosecutors should be elected.
 
Last edited:

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,227
Dispargum
#33
With the prosecutor in the executive branch, the courts can be neutral arbitors between the prosecution and the defense. If the prosecutors are in the judicial branch then there might be collusion between the prosecutor and the judge. Prosecutors and the police naturally work closely together. I'm sure you don't want to put the police in the judicial branch.
 
Likes: stevev
Oct 2018
654
Adelaide south Australia
#34
@Chlodio

The impeachment thing confuses me a bit.

It is my understanding that being impeached does not necessarily (or usually?) mean a crime has ben committed. The rules for impeachment seem a bit vague . Something like 'bringing the Presidency into disrepute". That sounds like with the right numbers, congress could have impeached a lot more presidents. Without the support of congress it would be exceedingly difficult to impeach.

Always comes down to qui bono? ( who benefits) . It is my perception that a president would only be impeached by his own party if they believed it would be. to their advantage, or more likely,, to their unacceptable disadvantage not to impeach

To be impeached is to be charged? Would a president be removed automatically if found guilty.?

I'm assuming that should a president be removed, the 25th amendment would automatically come into effect, and the VP would be sworn in as President. (?)

How could president Nixon be 'pardoned' when he had not been convicted ?

Being impeached seems like a shameful; thing. However, politicians area pretty thick skinned bunch. I would imagine Nixon resigned not because of the shame, but because he could no longer govern?

President Clinton was impeached, but not convicted, and remained President. Do you think that was due the type of charges? Strange as it may seem, getting a bj in the ova office would have been kind-of acceptable at the time. Today ,not so much. Lying to congress? Perhaps seen as so common by the people that it might be argued the charge was really for getting caught.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
2,560
Las Vegas, NV USA
#35
With the prosecutor in the executive branch, the courts can be neutral arbitors between the prosecution and the defense. If the prosecutors are in the judicial branch then there might be collusion between the prosecutor and the judge. Prosecutors and the police naturally work closely together. I'm sure you don't want to put the police in the judicial branch.
Point taken. A trial is inherently adversarial. However in criminal cases the theory is that the truth will come out in the process. How good is that theory when the full weight of the government is pitted against a defendant of limited means? Some countries use odd numbered judicial panels to hear cases. The panel can question the advocates as in US Supreme Court cases. The panel, made up of trained legal talent, makes the judgement.Under the these circumstances the prosecution and defense are more evenly matched.
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,227
Dispargum
#36
@Chlodio
The impeachment thing confuses me a bit.
It is my understanding that being impeached does not necessarily (or usually?) mean a crime has ben committed. The rules for impeachment seem a bit vague . Something like 'bringing the Presidency into disrepute". That sounds like with the right numbers, congress could have impeached a lot more presidents. Without the support of congress it would be exceedingly difficult to impeach.
Always comes down to qui bono? ( who benefits) . It is my perception that a president would only be impeached by his own party if they believed it would be. to their advantage, or more likely,, to their unacceptable disadvantage not to impeach
To be impeached is to be charged? Would a president be removed automatically if found guilty.?
I'm assuming that should a president be removed, the 25th amendment would automatically come into effect, and the VP would be sworn in as President. (?)
How could president Nixon be 'pardoned' when he had not been convicted ?
Being impeached seems like a shameful; thing. However, politicians area pretty thick skinned bunch. I would imagine Nixon resigned not because of the shame, but because he could no longer govern?
President Clinton was impeached, but not convicted, and remained President. Do you think that was due the type of charges? Strange as it may seem, getting a bj in the ova office would have been kind-of acceptable at the time. Today ,not so much. Lying to congress? Perhaps seen as so common by the people that it might be argued the charge was really for getting caught.
Impeachment is one of those words that most people use incorrectly. Technically, to impeach a president is only to charge or maybe the equivalent of an indictment. There is no separate word for a successful impeachment, ie, a conviction and removal from office, so most Americans use the word impeachment for the full process not just the charge and the trial.

The US Constitution says that presidents and other officials can be impeached for "bribery, treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." As Gerald Ford said, "An impeachable offense is anything Congress says is it is." Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice. Andrew Johnston was impeached for firing his secretary of war in violation of a Tenure of Office Act which Congress later repealed and which was subsequently declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Had he not resigned Nixon would have been impeached for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. At least one federal judge has been impeached for drunkeness - not normally considered a crime but it was the only way to remove him from office given that federal judges hold their jobs for life.
List of Individuals Impeached by the House of Representatives | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
Johnston, Nixon, and Clinton were all impeached by hostile Congresses controlled by the other party (if we consider Johnston to still be a lifelong Democrat). Reagan probably could have been impeached for the Iran-Contra Scandal. He had a hostile Congress, but his popularity saved him.
Yes, to be convicted is to be removed from office. The only other penalty ever inflicted was permanent disqualification from holding other office.
Yes, the 25th Amendment applies if a president is removed via impeachment.
Nixon's pardon was for all crimes he had committed or may have committed. Pardons are not just for convictions. They used to use pardons instead of immunity agreements to get witnesses to testify without self-incrimination. Ford pardoned Nixon to end the process so that the country could move on.
Nixon's entire career was a series of surprising comebacks. In Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire" one of the lines is "Richard Nixon back again." Nixon probably figured he could engineer one more comeback if he could avoid too much damage like a full impeachment, and to some extent he was successful. By the 1980s he had recovered his reputation and had positioned himself as America's elder statesman.
I think Clinton was acquitted because the Senate believed his crimes did not warrant removal from office. Just as the Radical Republicans are now seen as wrong to impeach Johnston, Clinton's Senate did not want to go down in history as the Senate that removed a president for getting a bj and lying about it.
 
Oct 2018
654
Adelaide south Australia
#37
@Chlodio

Thank you for a most informative answer. I especially was not aware that there is no separate word for a successful impeachment. Or that a pardon has the same effect as immunity.

I always felt sorry for Nixon. That's not much; I hold politicians as a species in contempt. To me, his crime was getting caught. I have always thought he was quite an effective president.

Be interested in your opinion of the list on link below.

10 Reasons Richard Nixon Was Secretly An Amazing President - Listverse

As an outsider, I always thought his trip to China was a very big deal.It's not mentioned in the ten good thing she did.

I tend to find US politics more interesting than Australian politics. Part of it is of course is being on the outside looking in at a safe distance.. Perhaps also bit like the dancing bear'; the wonder is not how well he dances, butt that it dances at all. Don't worry, there 's a large element of that in Aussie politics.Right now, we have a bunch of incompetent drongos in both houses. Both parties seem more concerned with vicious infighting than with governing.. That state of affairs has been going on, in differing degrees for over a decade. These days, it's a matter of "a pox on both your houses" for many voters.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
2,560
Las Vegas, NV USA
#38
@Chlodio
....... Don't worry, there 's a large element of that in Aussie politics.Right now, we have a bunch of incompetent drongos in both houses. Both parties seem more concerned with vicious infighting than with governing.. That state of affairs has been going on, in differing degrees for over a decade. These days, it's a matter of "a pox on both your houses" for many voters.
Australia, the UK, France and of course the US with serious doubts about their elected leaders. An old joke about Congress: "The IQ of Congress is 10,000!" "Nonsense! The scale doesn't go that high!" "True. That's when you add them all up!" (There are 535 voting members in the US Congress.) There may be some truth to that. Get 535 reasonably intelligent people together to deliberate and you get stupidity.:vomit:
 
Likes: bboomer
Apr 2017
2,560
Las Vegas, NV USA
#40
The whole world watches American politics. It's very entertaining, and they don't have to live with the results.
Yes, but I was following on bboomer's comments about Australia. Macron's approval in France is in the 20s% and the UK can't get its act together about Brexit.

Time to hire a Chairman of the Board (who could be a woman) to run things, subject to voter approval of course.