Veto in democracy?

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Faceman: Think about it: If everybody gains on one country's/race's/social group's expense we are one step closer to a splitted society. Vetos are there to prevent that and people who are equipped with that privilege usually (should) know to use it carefully and only in really important cases not for the run of the mill "tax cut for you but not for you" case.

Well this doesn't hold true for most parts. The thing that spurred my mind on this wsa France's decision to veto some agricultural change, I think it was subsidies. OK, so the French farmers lose money, nut so do all farmers. This would then encourage modern farming etc. etc., ergo it is a gain.

Holywarrior, in a pure democracy everyone would be just people. AFAIK the difference between republic and democracy is that a republic is ruled by law. And if the law includes veto power so be it. BUT a republic is still a representative government. And all democracies in the west are in fact republics since they all are representative governments, not ruled by the mob. Rome would then be the last tru democracy.

OK Mousy-boy, you have a point there. Did you get to vote on vetos for certain countries in regards to the EU?

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by HolyWarrior: Willow, in a pure democracy, there would be no people. The United States is a republic, not a democracy.

Why are the USA so eager to export democracy to other contries?

Should they export republic instead [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Night Stalker]

Hi Willow! [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]

The reason veto power was given to the Executive was to prevent tyrrany of the masses. Just because a majority of the People want something does not mean it is good for them or all of them. The Legislature, tasked with shaping the country was not entirely trusted to be always benign. Nor was the Executive for that matter. That is where the Judiciary is intended to be a brake on the other two. Should a law get passed that violates the basic rights of the People, *cough*PatriotAct*cough* then the People have the right and duty to try it's Constitutionality in the Courts. If the Judiciary finds misdeeds, it sends the offending law back to the Legislature for re-evaluation.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: quote: Originally posted by HolyWarrior: Willow, in a pure democracy, there would be no people. The United States is a republic, not a democracy.

Why are the USA so eager to export democracy to other contries?

Should they export republic instead [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]We the People are not ..... the neveau nobility that has been upsurping authority from the People is. Slight difference.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: quote: Originally posted by HolyWarrior: Willow, in a pure democracy, there would be no people. The United States is a republic, not a democracy.

Why are the USA so eager to export democracy to other contries?

Should they export republic instead [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]That's because the U.S.A. is a Deomcraticly elected "Constitutional Representative Republic" Our forefathers Democraticly decided to be a "CRR" Down through the years we the people have decided that we would keep it that way.

Our nation has a Constitution that spells out some of our rights as citizens, Rights that can not be taken away by a simple majority vote of the people.

[Faceman]

Originally posted by WillowIX: Rome would then be the last tru democracy.

Nope, Rome was a republic. "Res Publica" is Latin for "public matter" and the USA were formed after the example of Rome.
Rome had a senate and representatives for the plebs.
The last (and first) true democracy was Athens where every citizen got to vote (however that excluded women, outsiders, slaves, ...)

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Hi Willow! [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img] The reason veto power was given to the Executive was to prevent tyrrany of the masses. Just because a majority of the People want something does not mean it is good for them or all of them. The Legislature, tasked with shaping the country was not entirely trusted to be always benign. Nor was the Executive for that matter. That is where the Judiciary is intended to be a brake on the other two. Should a law get passed that violates the basic rights of the People, *cough*PatriotAct*cough* then the People have the right and duty to try it's Constitutionality in the Courts. If the Judiciary finds misdeeds, it sends the offending law back to the Legislature for re-evaluation.

Ahhh! Excellent Night Stalker! Thanks a bunch. [img]smile.gif[/img] So veto is a part of democracy although its powers clearly obstructs democracy's purpose?

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Faceman: Nope, Rome was a republic. "Res Publica" is Latin for "public matter" and the USA were formed after the example of Rome. Rome had a senate and representatives for the plebs. The last (and first) true democracy was Athens where every citizen got to vote (however that excluded women, outsiders, slaves, ...)

Sure they did but it wasn't the emperor or the senate that held the power. The mob and especially the military were the two most powerful factors in Rome.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by WillowIX: Ahhh! Excellent Night Stalker! Thanks a bunch. [img]smile.gif[/img] So veto is a part of democracy although its powers clearly obstructs democracy's purpose?

Well, I wasn't talking about Democracy, for that is NOT what the American gubmint is. But, yes, veto is there to impede a bill being signed into law. Laws, once they are on the books are very hard to change or delete. They take on inertia of their own. The will of the Republic is not always a good thing. That is why veto is written into the American Constitution. But the veto power of the President in not absolute. A bill, after being vetoed is sent back to Congress for modification. Should Congress still want to pass the bill unmodified, they can .... provided they achieve a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate. See, a bill can be signed into law with only a simple majority - 50% + 1. They need more cohession to pass a vetoed bill. And like a said, after being signed into law, it is possible for the Supreme Court to strike it down on Constitutional grounds.

Now, why would this be important. Considder slavery, which was once, regretably, part of America. The whole notion should have been struck down. But, barring that the President should have vetoed it .... or been declared unConstitutional by the Court. Of course they did some major denial/justification to claim that slaves were not human to get around that "All men are created equal." thing. This was more to get the South to ratify the new gubmint for they would not abandon their ways and the flegling nation could not hope to stand against Europe if they were divided. Anyway this is just one example were the Will of the People is not a GoodThing^TM.

[Faceman]

Originally posted by WillowIX: quote: Originally posted by Faceman: Nope, Rome was a republic. "Res Publica" is Latin for "public matter" and the USA were formed after the example of Rome. Rome had a senate and representatives for the plebs. The last (and first) true democracy was Athens where every citizen got to vote (however that excluded women, outsiders, slaves, ...)

Sure they did but it wasn't the emperor or the senate that held the power. The mob and especially the military were the two most powerful factors in Rome. [/QUOTE]The mob always has the power but it's the government/senate/king/... who channels it.
Technically speaking the thing that has power in a car is the fuel but the driver uses the engine to channel that power and drive.
Like an emperor/king/senate/... uses the governmental structure to rule his people.
The ancient Roman Republic was run by families of nobles who were elected for consul and after retirement joined the senate. After Gaius Julius Caesar's dictatorship and some quarrels the time of the emperors (starting with Oktavian) started. The senate now was nothing more but a show and all the power was with the emperor.