Click here for AnswerPool.com Home page


Google

    AnswerPool.com  Hop To Forum Categories  News & Reference  Hop To Forums  Civics & Government    President with Congress opposed

Moderators: Koz
Go
Post
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
  Login/Join 
Diamond
Enthusiast

Posted
GWB makes , or made, some play of his being a Governor and able to govern successfully when the opposition party controlled his state legislature.

Now we have his being President, at least until today, when Congress is dominated by his own party.Many or most Americans seem to regard this state of affairs as abnormal and not a good thing whoever the President may be.

So:How many and which Presidents since, say, 1900, have been President when a)the Senate but not the House has been of the opposing party ?
b) the House but not the Senate has been of the opposing party ?
c) both House and Senate have been of the opposing party ?
d) both House and Senate have been of his own party ?

What consequences have there been of each of these possibilities in practice ? On the face of it, from a British perspective, the electorate is ill-served by a situation where the Senate and the House are of different political persuasion and the more so where there is a contrast of President and one or both of Senate and House. Government must then, by needs, be by compromise and wheeling and dealing, with, presumably , mixed or unpredictable results. None of the electors can be sure or satisfied that their wishes, as voted for at any given poll, will produce any sure result in any given instance.Moreover the elections that occur mid-term can only serve to complicate the position.(I appreciate that you have not got flexibility over election terms, but why does not the electorate opt to support one party throughout so as to get speedy government ?)

[Since we had universal suffrage in Britain there have been but two instances of a General Election producing a 'hung parliament' where one party did not have a clear majority (plurality). In both cases the incoming government's party staggered on with the aid of a small minority party or parties but survived in this way for only a few years until a new election had to be called because the most popular party was being intermittently hamstrung by opposition: 1929 was followed by an election in 1931 and 1974 by one in 1977(when one party formed a pact with a third party ) and again in 1979 ( at which one party had enough dominance to rule and do what it had set out in its manifesto and so had promised to the electorate without begging in aid the help of other parties).]
 
Posts: 8355 | Location: Newmarket, UK/ Antibes, S.France | Registered: 07-14-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Site
Administrator
Picture of DorianGreyed
Posted Hide Post
While not answering your question, I feel it necessary to point out that Texas, the state that elected bush governor, has a so-called "weak governor" system. In fact, the Lieutenant Governor is a more powerful position, and the Governor is regarded as the 4th or 5th most powerful position in the state.


The Lieutenant Governor's duties -

controls the work of the Texas Senate, is President of the Texas Senate, establishes all special and standing committees, appoints all chairpersons and members, assigns all Senate legislation to the committee of his choice, decides all questions of parliamentary procedure in the Senate (has broad discretion in following Senate procedural rules)

is an ex officio member of several statutory bodies, including Legislative Budget Board, the Legislative Council, the Legislative Audit Committee, the Legislative Education Board, the Cash Management Committee and the Bond Review Board

is Chairperson of the Legislative Budget Board and Legislative Council, which have considerable sway over state programs, the budget and policy.

controls the budgeting process as a leader of the Legislative Budget Board

assumes the powers of Governor when the Governor is out of the state or otherwise unable to discharge the office


Governor's duties in Texas -

commands the state militia (Roll Eyes) (Note: This is not the Texas Rangers or the Texas Highway Patrol. They both are part of the Texas Department of Public Safety, which is headed by a commission. The militia activities conscious of themselves as the Texas Constitutional Militia are organized by county, and, because of the large size of the state, at the time of this writing the counties are divided into regions that approximately coincide with telephone area codes. There are also militia training activities that are not county-based, such as the Texas Light Infantry (TLI), which provide training for the county-based units. The Militia is the people in a certain capacity, as defenders of the community and enforcers of the law. According to this site, they are basically citiens who act as law enforcement until the real law enforcement gets there.*

can veto bills passed by the Legislature

calls special sessions of the Legislature (this power is exclusive to the governor and can be exercised as often as desired)

appoints members of various executive boards

fills judicial vacancies between elections (Except in the case of some municipal benches, partisan elections choose all of the judges at all levels of the judiciary)
----
* From the site -

Q: What is the Militia?

A: It was best defined by George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, who said, "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers."

Q: Power? Don't the military and police have powers ordinary civilians don't have?

A: Yes, the police have special powers to enforce certain regulations, like traffic regulations, that civilians don't have. And the military can engage in combat operations on foreign soil representing the United States. But all citizens have general powers to repel invasions, suppress insurrections, and enforce the laws, the three duties of the Militia, just like the military
and police. They just don't do it on a full-time, paid basis.

Q: That may be the way things once were, back when this country was founded and during the frontier era, but does the concept of the Militia have any relevance for today?

A: As much as it ever did. This country still faces threats from foreign enemies. Maybe not invasions on the ground from a foreign army, but terrorists, guerrillas, and criminal gangs, either foreign or domestic, are a growing threat. Urban riots are always possible, and looters are a potential threat following natural or manmade disasters. The police can't be everywhere, and rising crime means that everyone must be prepared to act on his own or in cooperation with other citizens to enforce the laws until the professionals can assume control of the situation. Everyone must also be prepared to perform emergency services until emergency professionals can take over, sometimes under circumstances in which they must also be prepared to use armed force.

Q: Come on! I'm not trained or equipped to act as a policeman, a fireman, or a paramedic. How can I be expected to do that?

A: Because you are an American citizen, and it goes with being a citizen, whether you like it or not. What you need to do is get trained and get equipped.

Q: Come on! It takes those guys years to learn those skills. Wouldn't I just be doing more harm than good if I tried to get involved?

A: No one is expecting you to jump into a raging river to save someone from drowning if you don't know how to swim, but what you should do is learn swimming and lifesaving. Likewise, you can
learn other skills that may be needed, and keep some of the tools you might need. For a reasonable investment of time and money, most citizens can prepare themselves to function effectively in
most such situations, sometimes even better than the professionals. For example, statistics show that in shootouts against criminals, law enforcement professionals are five times more likely to hit innocent bystanders than armed civilians are. Part of this may be due to the civilians being on the scene first, and therefore knowing who the bad guys are and are not, but it also indicates that civilians are more careful, and often more skilled. Many civilians are also skilled in the unarmed martial arts, skills that many law enforcement departments actually forbid their members from learning and using, fearing lawsuits.

Q: Are you really saying we should all carry guns all the time?

A: Most of the time, yes. It's not that difficult. After a while, you barely notice it.

Q: Wouldn't there be a lot more deaths and injuries from firearms if everyone carried them all the time?

A: Well, we don't say everyone should always carry one. Obviously, some people shouldn't.
--------
I am NOT making this up.
 
Posts: 17233 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by eve community  
 

    AnswerPool.com  Hop To Forum Categories  News & Reference  Hop To Forums  Civics & Government    President with Congress opposed

© 2002-2008 AnswerPool.com



Visit DiscussionPool.com!