Connect with us

Americas

The name of the US system is not the “presidential system”

Avatar photo

Published

on

11 years after the United States declared independence from the British Kingdom, 55 people representing 12 colonies gathered in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787. Their aim was to make a constitution that would shape the new state, which had been in the form of a loose confederation for 11 years. These 55 men did not have a republic administration that could set an example in the world of those days. They learned by painfully experiencing the arbitrariness and tyranny of a system in which the governors of the colony were the ‘governor of their majesty’, the judges’ the ‘judge of their majesty’, and the law was the ‘command of his majesty’. However, the experience of “democracy” in the colonies within 11 years after the declaration of independence did not turn out very bright. In many places of the colonies, only decisions based on majority vote had arbitrary and overbearing pressure on the minority, as much as the governors of their majesty. They were looking for a system that would not allow arbitrariness and abuse of power, but also guarantee equality, freedom and rights for each individual. For this reason, it is understood from their correspondence and discussions in those days that they have studied all the management experiences in history since Ancient Greece. French lawyer Montesquieu was also one of the names that he was most impressed with. The theory of separation of powers expressed by Montesquieu in the Spirit of Laws published in 1748 was one of the most important guides in shaping the new American state.

James Madison, one of the architects of the US Constitution, wrote in the Federalist article No. 51 published in 1788: Regardless of whether he came with reign or election, giving the same hand is the definition of tyranny. ”

After the Constitutional Assembly, which lasted 3 months and 23 days until September 17, 1787, the world’s shortest constitution with 7 articles (including 27 additional articles to be added in the following years) emerged. The first three articles of the Constitution guarantee the separation of powers. They preferred to put the chairman, the executive, not the executive, the legislative power, in the center of the state. The first article held the Congress, the second the presidency and the third the judiciary.

During the approval of the Constitution at state congresses throughout 1788, some criticized that the first three articles of the Constitution did not bring a pure separation of powers. For example, the president had the power to veto a law passed by the Congress. This was the exercise of legislative power by the president. The Senate also had the power to reject the president’s appointments to federal institutions. This was executive power. These people were right in their criticism. As a matter of fact, James Madison, one of the most important actors in the creation of the new Constitution, would write that “a pure separation of powers is practically not possible and this is not the intention of Montesquieu.”

But what would prevent the state’s legislative, judicial and executive powers from gathering in the same hand, and thus the disappearance of the republic, if it was impossible for them to be completely separated?

The essence of the American constitutional state system emerged in this search for a solution: ‘Check and Balance’, namely ‘Balance and Supervision’. In fact, although there are some primitive practices in the British monarchy, Madison is also referred to as the “Madisonian Model” because it was the idea pioneer of applying it to a republic for the first time. In the balance and supervision system, the powers that make the law, enforce it and interpret the law will be independent from each other, but they will also have the power to control each other when they exceed their authority.

After the Constitution was adopted, despite these mechanisms, the feeling that state power continued to pose a potential threat to the rights and freedoms of citizens. Madison and Thomas Jefferson also joined this concern. Madison expressed concern that an oppressive majority could easily violate minority rights, and submitted an additional 10 amendments to the Constitution, called the ‘Bill of Rights’ in 1789. The constitutional amendment was approved in 1791. First Amendment, which restricts the freedom of expression and assembly of the congress or prohibits making laws against / against any religion, included the three powers of the state as well as the public in the system of ‘balance and supervision’. In other words, media, non-governmental organizations or ordinary citizens also gained the right to control, criticize, disclose and campaign against all kinds of activities of the state.

The retouch that Montesquieu is the real separation of “separation of powers” will come from the US Supreme Court on February 24, 1803.

In the case of William Marbury, who was appointed as a judge but whose appointment was not processed due to a lack of procedure; the case-law of the Supreme Court regarding the role of the judiciary rather than the content of the case was the beginning of the age of “separation of powers”.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that, in the decision of the case called ‘Marbury v Madison, there should be a man to protect the constitution; both against the executive and the legislature, and that it was the judiciary. That is, the courts were judged to have the power to cancel the laws, presidential decrees and practices they found unconstitutional.

President of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, wrote on the grounds: “The constitution is either a superior law that cannot be easily changed like ordinary laws, or it is the same level of savings as ordinary laws that the legislative power can change at any time. If the first of these options is true, the legislative body’s unconstitutional savings cannot qualify as a law. The second point is that written constitutions are like a meaningless attempt by nations to limit a force that is inherently impossible to limit. ”

Marbury v 1803 of the Supreme Court. The main purpose of this judicial control, which he reinforced with the case law in the Madison case, was to prevent the establishment of a dictatorship in the country by the executive or legislative power, or the denial of the constitutional order by law, and to guarantee the survival of the constitutional order of the republic.

Since this jurisprudence, both the federal district court and the Supreme Court have been able to revoke a law made by the Congress on the grounds that it is against the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton would write that the judicial control, which he described as the “legislative powers’ barrier against abuse”, was “the most shaping of the character of the American state system”.

The American system is of course not a perfect system. It also produced many problems. However, this system is the most important reason why the USA has not had a dictatorship experience for 227 years, has not witnessed a democracy cut, and is known as the ‘country of freedoms’. In political history, it continues to be the most effective mechanism for preventing abuse of state power.

In the USA, the term “presidential system” is a statement used for executive power in the context of the relationship between legislature and executive powers. It is not a concept that describes the American state system. In fact, this false perception occurred in the 20th century with the development of mass media. For example, Abraham Lincoln, who was considered the most important president of the USA by historians, was a name he did not know throughout the world, even in Europe. The first world-renowned president was Woodrow Wilson, president of World War I. The fact that the US presidential elections became the center of attention started in 1960 with the election of John F. Kennedy. The importance attributed to the president in the American public has increased in the last century. The position of the presidents, especially in foreign policy, strengthened relatively during the Cold War. However, the President is still not the power at the center of the system. It’s not the only power. The name of the American state system is not the “presidential system” but the “balance and control system”.

A state equipped with control mechanisms

The system of balance and control produces constant tension and strife among the three powers of the state. But this is exactly what constitutionalists want. Madison would record, “the passion of every man breaks another man from exceeding his authority.” This conflict, which mostly produces results for the benefit of America, is found all over the American system at the local or federal scale.

The President of the USA has the power to veto the law made by the Congress, but Congress has the power to pass the veto by two-thirds of the votes and enact the same bill.

From the ministers, ambassadors, the CIA and FBI presidents to the heads of federal institutions such as NASA and the Central Bank, the president chooses the candidate for all the important authorities of the executive, but only if the Senate approves.

Candidates for the vacant membership of the Supreme Court and judges to the federal courts elect the president, but they can start their duty only if the absolute majority of the Senate approves. Federal judges and members of the Supreme Court can never be dismissed and amended against their personal rights unless they retire voluntarily after they have taken office. This prevents a single government from completely filling the judiciary with its own staff within the mandate. Nevertheless, Congress can dismiss judges whose heavy penalty criminal crime is fixed from their duties.

The president and ministers sign international treaties on behalf of the US state, but the approval of two-thirds of the Senate is required for these treaties to take effect. The judiciary can also revoke the administrative decisions of the head of state or international treaties by finding it unconstitutional.

The Congress has the power to dismiss the President of the USA, the rulers of the federal institutions. During the dismissal, the House of Representatives acts as the admissions authority of the indictment and the Senate as a court. In these sessions, the President of the Senate is chaired by the Senate. The Assembly has exercised the power to initiate the process of dismissal about the president twice so far.

Through its committees and subcommittees, federal institutions have the authority to examine, investigate and, if necessary, refer to all decisions, policies and procedures. One of the ex-presidents, Woodrow Wilson, would state that the Congress has this legislative power over administrative functioning.

Congress can annul the Supreme Court case-law by amending the Constitution. But the constitutional amendment can only take place with the two-thirds vote of both wings of the Congress and the approval of three-quarters of the 50 state congresses. In other words, it is impossible for a party to change the Constitution alone, no matter how strong it is.

As a PhD student, he studies in political science and public administration , actively serves as an court expert and is the president of the board of Genç Düşünce Enstitüsü.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Ron Paul: Biden Administration accept that it has a “Zelensky problem”

Avatar photo

Published

on

biden-foreign-policy
Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson

Last week the world stood on the very edge of a nuclear war, as Ukraine’s US-funded president, Vladimir Zelensky, urged NATO military action over a missile that landed on Polish soil.”

This is a comment from the prominent American political leader Ronald Ernest Paul was for many years the member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas. Three times he sought the Presidency of the United States: once as the Libertarian Party nominee and twice as a candidate for the Republican Party. He continues in his comment:

“But there was a problem. The missile was fired from Ukraine – likely an accident in the fog of war. Was it actually a Russian missile, of course, that might mean World War III.

‘While Zelensky has been treated as a saint by the US media, the Biden Administration, and both parties in Congress, something unprecedented happened this time: the Biden Administration pushed back. According to press reports, several Zelensky calls to Biden or senior Biden Staff went unanswered.

‘The Biden Administration went on to publicly dispute Zelensky’s continued insistence that Russia shot missiles into NATO-Member Poland. After two days of Washington opposition to his claims, Zelensky finally, sort of, backed down.

‘We’ve heard rumors of President Biden’s frustration over Zelensky’s endless begging and ingratitude for the 60 or so billion dollars doled out to him by the US government, but this is the clearest public example of the Biden Administration’s acceptance that it has a “Zelensky problem.”

‘Zelensky must have understood that Washington and Brussels knew it was not a Russian missile.

‘Considering the vast intelligence capabilities of the US in that war zone, it is likely the US government knew in real time that the missiles were not Russian. For Zelensky to claim otherwise seemed almost unhinged. And for what seems like the first time, Washington noticed.

‘As a result, there has been a minor – but hopefully growing – revolt among conservatives in Washington over this dangerous episode. Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene introduced legislation demanding an audit of the tens of billions of dollars shipped to Ukraine – with perhaps $50 billion more in the pipeline.

‘When the Ukraine war hysteria finally dies down – as the Covid hysteria died down before it – it will become obvious to vastly more Americans what an absolute fiasco this whole thing has been,” writes Ron Paul.

International Affairs

Continue Reading

Americas

The G20 is dead. Long live the G20

Avatar photo

Published

on

Image source: International Affairs

The seventeenth G20 Heads of State and Government Summit held in Bali, Indonesia, on 15–16 November stands out as a consequential event from many angles. The international politics is at an inflection point and the transition will not leave unaffected any of the institutions inherited from the past that is drifting away forever. 

However, the G20 can be an exception in bridging time past with time present and time future. The tidings from Bali leave a sense of mixed feelings of hope and despair. The G20 was conceived against the backdrop of the financial crisis in 2007 — quintessentially, a western attempt to burnish the jaded G7 by bringing on board the emerging powers that stood outside it looking in, especially China,  and thereby inject contemporaneity into global discourses. 

The leitmotif was harmony. How far the Bali summit lived up to that expectation is the moot point today. Regrettably, the G7 selectively dragged extraneous issues into the deliberations and its alter ego, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), made its maiden appearance in the Asia-Pacific. Arguably, the latter must be counted as a fateful happening during the Bali summit. 

What happened is a negation of the spirit of the G20. If the G7 refuses to discard its bloc mentality, the cohesion of the G20 gets affected. The G7-NATO joint statement could have been issued from Brussels or Washington or London.  Why Bali? 

The Chinese President Xi Jinping was spot on saying in a written speech at the APEC CEO Summit in Bangkok on November 17 that “The Asia-Pacific is no one’s backyard and should not become an arena for big power contest. No attempt to wage a new cold war will ever be allowed by the people or by the times.” 

Xi warned that “Both geopolitical tensions and the evolving economic dynamics have exerted a negative impact on the development environment and cooperation structure of the Asia-Pacific.” Xi said the Asia-Pacific region was once a ground for big power rivalry, had suffered conflicts and war. “History tells us that bloc confrontation cannot solve any problem and that bias will only lead to disaster.”

The golden rule that security issues do not fall within the purview of G20 has been broken. At the G20 summit, the western countries held the rest of the participants at the Bali summit to ransom: ‘Our way or no way’. Unless the intransigent West was appeased on Ukraine issue, there could be no Bali declaration, so, Russia relented. The sordid drama showed that the DNA of the western world hasn’t changed. Bullying remains its distinguishing trait.

But, ironically, at the end of the day, what stood out was that the Bali Declaration failed to denounce Russia on the Ukraine issue. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey give reason for hope that G20 can regenerate itself. These countries were never western colonies. They are dedicated to multipolarity, which will ultimately compel the West to concede that unilateralism and hegemony is unsustainable. 

This inflection point gave much verve to the meeting between the US President Joe Biden and the Chinese President Xi Jinping at Bali. Washington requested for such a meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit, and Beijing consented. One striking thing about the meeting has been that Xi was appearing on the world stage after a hugely successful Party Congress. 

The resonance of his voice was unmistakable. Xi underscored that the US has lost the plot, when he told Biden: “A statesman should think about and know where to lead his country. He should also think about and know how to get along with other countries and the wider world.” (here and here)

The White House readouts hinted that Biden was inclined to be conciliatory. The US faces an uphill challenge to isolate China. As things stand, circumstances overall work to China’s advantage. (here , here and here)

The majority of countries have refused to take sides on Ukraine. China’s stance amply reflects it. Xi told Biden that China is ‘highly concerned’ about the current situation in Ukraine and support and look forward to a resumption of peace talks between Russia and China. That said, Xi also expressed the hope that the US, NATO and the EU ‘will conduct comprehensive dialogues’ with Russia.   

The fault lines that appeared at Bali may take new forms by the time the G20 holds its 18th summit in India next year. There is reason to be cautiously optimistic. First and foremost, it is improbable that Europe will go along with the US strategy of weaponising sanctions against China. They cannot afford a decoupling from China, which is the world’s largest trading nation and the principal driver of growth for the world economy. 

Second, much as the battle cries in Ukraine rallied Europe behind the US, a profound rethink is under way. Much agonising is going on about Europe’s commitment to strategic autonomy. The recent visit of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to China pointed in that direction. It is inevitable that Europe will distance itself from the US’ cold war aspirations. This process is inexorable in a world where the US is not inclined to spend time, money or effort on its European allies.

The point is, in many ways, America’s capacity to provide effective global economic leadership has irreversibly diminished, having lost its pre-eminent status as the world’s largest economy by a wide margin. Besides, the US is no longer willing or capable of investing heavily in shouldering the burden of leadership. Simply put, it still has nothing on offer to match China’s Belt and Road Initiative. This should have had a chastening influence and prompted a change of mindset toward cooperative policy actions, but the American elite are stuck in the old groove.

Fundamentally, therefore, multilateralism has become much harder in the present-day world situation. Nonetheless, the G20 is the only game in town to bring together the G7 and the aspiring developing countries who stands to gain out of a democratised world order. The western alliance system is rooted in the past. The bloc mentality holds little appeal to the developing countries. The gravitation of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia toward the BRICS conveys a powerful message that the western strategy in conceiving the G20 — to create a ring of subaltern states around the G7 — has outlived its utility. 

The dissonance that was on display in Bali exposed that the US still clings to its entitlement and is willing to play the spoiler. India has a great opportunity to navigate the G20 in a new direction. But it requires profound shifts on India’s part too –away from its US-centric foreign policies, coupled with far-sightedness and  a bold vision to forge a cooperative relationship with China, jettisoning past phobias and discarding self-serving narratives, and, indeed, at the very least, avoiding any further descent into beggar-thy-neighbour policies.

indianpunchline

Continue Reading

Americas

President Biden under fire

Avatar photo

Published

on

Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz

Republicans announced that they are launching an investigation that will focus on President Biden himself and any illicit or unethical financial ties he had to his son Hunter’s overseas dealings, writes “The Daily Mail”.

Now Joe Biden and his family are facing an onslaught of subpoenas from the House majority members, who say they know where the proverbial bodies are buried.

Rep. James Comer led the press conference, where he made clear that the president himself was the target of the House GOP’s probe. He is a ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, will have the power to issue legally-backed demands for documents, information and testimony once the 188th Congress begins on January 3.

The congressman laid out his plans to use that power to go after the Bidens for alleged wire fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, illegal foreign lobbying and defrauding the government.

The evidence Comer is currently combing through, and is seeking to claw via subpoena, could ultimately result in articles of impeachment for the president and prison for the First Son.

Comer is also asking the Treasury for copies of more than 150 suspicious activity reports (SARs) involving the Bidens, filed by banks under anti-financial crime laws, that could be key to tracing the flows of foreign funds to the family’s coffers.

Amid all the shocking messages involving Joe Biden, possibly the most important email of the 154,000 on Hunter’s abandoned laptop is the infamous ‘big guy’ email, suggesting that the president was secretly involved in, and set to profit from, an alleged Chinese influence operation.

In total Joe met with fifteen of Hunter’s business associates according to White House visitor logs and records from the First Son’s laptop.

Emails on Hunter’s abandoned laptop published by DailyMail.com show that Hunter and Joe paid each other’s bills, and Hunter’s business partner Eric Schwerin did Joe’s taxes and visited the then-VP at the White House at least 27 times.

Joe also hosted Hunter’s best friend, business partner and now convicted fraudster Devon Archer at the White House just days before Archer and Hunter were appointed to the Burisma board (Ukraine) in 2014.

Archer was entertained at the West Wing on April 16 2014 according to visitor logs. Joe traveled to Kiev five days later on April 21. The next day, Archer joined the Ukrainian gas company’s board. On April 28, British officials froze $23million in accounts belonging to Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky, accusing him of fraud. The following month Hunter also joined the gas firm’s board.

Soon we may see some ugly tricks of Biden’s Ukrainian friends revealed…

International Affairs

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Economy2 mins ago

Why the burden on business women to ‘do it all’ must stop

Glorifying multi-tasking by women is something we are all guilty of – across the globe we celebrate women who have...

Energy2 hours ago

Analyzing China Solar Energy for Poverty Alleviation (SEPAP) Program

In 2014, China deployed a large-scale initiative named as Solar Energy Poverty Alleviation Program (SEPAP) to systematically alleviate poverty in...

Europe5 hours ago

Significance of first EU-Bangladesh political dialogue

The European Union (EU) and Bangladesh held their first “political dialogue” on Thursday (November 24) in Dhaka to “elevate” their...

Energy7 hours ago

USA-KSA Energy War and Global Energy Crisis

The response of the USA to OPEC and its partner’s plan to reduce output by two million barrels per day...

Eastern Europe12 hours ago

Is a Marshall Plan for Ukraine possible?

Reflecting on Ukraine’s future beyond the current conflict, many politicians and experts speculate about the expediency of a new Marshall...

International Law16 hours ago

Why International Institutions Survive: An Afterword to the G20 Summit

We, of course, are extremely critical of the very idea of global institutions and the prospects for their survival amid the emergence of a qualitatively...

Terrorism Terrorism
Defense17 hours ago

America Produces Biological Weapons; Does Russia? Does China?

On November 26th, Russia’s RT News bannered “US ‘military biological activities’ a threat to the world – Russia”, and reported...

Trending