[EM] Gilmour's Parliamentary Problem:

[Kevin Venzke]

 --- Donald Davison <donald at mich.com> a écrit : 
> It is time for you parliamentary people to move on and learn to commit
> yourselves to an executive government for a peroid of time - in others
> words, elect an executive directly by the people separate from the
> parliament.

Are you an American, Donald?  Or from what country's experience have you
decided that a presidential system is better than a parliamentary one?

I think the American checks and balances are off-balance:
The president can veto Congress' laws.
The president nominates all the Supreme Court justices.

The other branches' checks on the president are laughable.

> The Parliamentary form of government is a `Hang On' to the King form of
> government in which the king not only made the laws but he also enforces
> the laws (and also was the judge).

You have it backwards.  The president is based on a monarch.  Note how much
legislative and even judicial power the president effectively has.

I wonder when it last was that a country adopted a U.S.-style presidential
form of government.  Or maybe you have in mind a French- or Russian-style of
presidency?

> 
> The three separate branches of government is a better form of government.

Why do you think so?  Just for stability?

I think it is folly to have the executive branch (those who are supposed to
enforce the law) not be responsible to the branch which is supposedly making
the laws.

If parliamentary systems have stability problems, there are other ways of
addressing them besides completely eliminating the executive's responsibility.


Kevin Venzke
stepjak at yahoo.fr


___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com