Should Australia become a republic?

Astronomer · 12-13-2009, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

This is concerning to me. It sounds as if your perception is that the President of the United States is declared supreme leader for four years. As a matter of origin, the the President is routinely denied authority on matter based on our separation of powers.

Part of me is concerned this is somehow coloring your view on Republic's in general. Is it?

To be honest I don't know much about how the constitution or how politics work in the United States so chances are I'm mistaken about my beliefs. Our Prime Minister must work hand in hand with parliament, and parliament has the power to convene elections for a new prime minister if they do not believe in the decisions the prime minister has made. I thought the president does not have to answer to the senate or the house unless he or she has committed an illegal act. Which essentially I thought means more power is given to one singular person. I may be wrong, so apologies if I am.

This may be indeed colouring my view on a republic, but not to any significant extent. My main argument on not becoming a republic is the fact that there are more positives than negatives about being affiliated with Britain, and also that everything is working fine the way it is now so why try to change it.

TheBig3 · 12-13-2009, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lateralus

To be honest I don't know much about how the constitution or how politics work in the United States so chances are I'm mistaken about my beliefs. Our Prime Minister must work hand in hand with parliament, and parliament has the power to convene elections for a new prime minister if they do not believe in the decisions the prime minister has made. I thought the president does not have to answer to the senate or the house unless he or she has committed an illegal act. Which essentially I thought means more power is given to one singular person. I may be wrong, so apologies if I am.

This may be indeed colouring my view on a republic, but not to any significant extent. My main argument on not becoming a republic is the fact that there are more positives than negatives about being affiliated with Britain, and also that everything is working fine the way it is now so why try to change it.

Yeah I mean as far as how it pertains to Australia, I wouldn't think I could comment. We're designed in America to embrace individualism and freedom, so i think we're naturally inclined to make decisions moving toward no political ties.

That being said, if nothing will change, then why not stand alone? Does becoming a Republican change any internal political processes?

As far as how the American Presidency works, they basically control the military and can veto legislation, but Congress (senators included) creates legislation. The president requires the house of Congress to do anything.

mr dave · 12-13-2009, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

That being said, if nothing will change, then why not stand alone? Does becoming a Republican change any internal political processes?

can't comment for other Commonwealth nations but in Canada i think that would cause a major issue due to the members of the Senate being appointed until they hit 75.

if there's one thing that needs a bigger reform than the Governor General's role it's the Senate. no election, no public consideration, just a short list of names and a stamp of approval from the GG's office.

take the GG out of the picture and it's a short list written by AND approved by, the Prime Minister, with no real opportunity to question the selections. the current process allows final arbitration by the GG's office. as such most nominations are sensible but i wouldn't doubt for a minute that without an outside authority it would be packed with hard line cronies (not that it doesn't already happen).

Barnard17 · 12-13-2009, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

As far as how the American Presidency works, they basically control the military and can veto legislation, but Congress (senators included) creates legislation. The president requires the house of Congress to do anything.

Executive Orders?

That said, in the Parliamentary system the Prime Minister has arguably greater powers with arguably weaker democratic mandate so Lateralus' criticism isn't necessarily an accurate one.

TheBig3 · 12-13-2009, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave

can't comment for other Commonwealth nations but in Canada i think that would cause a major issue due to the members of the Senate being appointed until they hit 75.

if there's one thing that needs a bigger reform than the Governor General's role it's the Senate. no election, no public consideration, just a short list of names and a stamp of approval from the GG's office.

take the GG out of the picture and it's a short list written by AND approved by, the Prime Minister, with no real opportunity to question the selections. the current process allows final arbitration by the GG's office. as such most nominations are sensible but i wouldn't doubt for a minute that without an outside authority it would be packed with hard line cronies (not that it doesn't already happen).

You know I'm not very savvy when it comes to Parliament but what you're describing right here sounds horrifying.

TheBig3 · 12-13-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnard17

Executive Orders?

That said, in the Parliamentary system the Prime Minister has arguably greater powers with arguably weaker democratic mandate so Lateralus' criticism isn't necessarily an accurate one.

What about executive orders? There general enforcements of existing laws. Its the "execution" of the Executive branch. The presidency is a powerful office, but its not nearly as powerful as it appears.

Executive order that come to mind is taking idiot Governor's out of school doors, enforcing amendments, desegregating the military, and removing a ban on federal funding for stem cell research.

mr dave · 12-13-2009, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

You know I'm not very savvy when it comes to Parliament but what you're describing right here sounds horrifying.

most of it is ceremonial for now, but yeah, it's got all sorts of Orwellian potential.

Barnard17 · 12-13-2009, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

What about executive orders? There general enforcements of existing laws. Its the "execution" of the Executive branch. The presidency is a powerful office, but its not nearly as powerful as it appears.

Well, no. Executive Orders essentially act as laws until they're either deemed by the Supreme Court to be complicit with existing legislation (which requires someone to take the Executive Order to court) or to be ratified/denied by both houses of Congress in a relevant bill (by my understanding) each of which takes time. So although functionally in recent times there hasn't been a problem that doesn't mean the potential doesn't exist. There's also the subject of the wide rein of power that can be exerted by cabinet officials (such as this recent climate change being a health issue and the openings that creates for Obama without having to go through Congress) although that's equally available to the Parliamentary system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

You know I'm not very savvy when it comes to Parliament but what you're describing right here sounds horrifying.

This is irrelevant to the Parliamentary system and could equally exist in a Presidential state (although with slight alterations but nothing significant). Parliamentary system essentially means that the leading executive figure is selected from the majority party in whichever house is deemed to be preferential (often lower, obviously irrelevant to a unicameral system), rather than separately elected, and generally maintains a presence in both the executive and legislative branches of Government.

TheBig3 · 12-13-2009, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnard17

Well, no. Executive Orders essentially act as laws until they're either deemed by the Supreme Court to be complicit with existing legislation (which requires someone to take the Executive Order to court) or to be ratified/denied by both houses of Congress in a relevant bill (by my understanding) each of which takes time. So although functionally in recent times there hasn't been a problem that doesn't mean the potential doesn't exist. There's also the subject of the wide rein of power that can be exerted by cabinet officials (such as this recent climate change being a health issue and the openings that creates for Obama without having to go through Congress) although that's equally available to the Parliamentary system.

What Lateralus is concerned with is that the President would be elected Ayatollah and that isn't the case. Executive orders, in the past, have been enforcement of the existing law.

If they ever had done anything overreaching Congress would eliminate any threat, their poll numbers would plummet, and the congress could open the trial of impeachment.

An American President is not a king. But about Australia...

Ronnie Jane Devo · 01-04-2010, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Exactly, I don't see any benefit in becoming a republic at the moment either. Like I said, why try to 'fix' something when it isn't broken? Our political system as worked well for us thus far so why try to change it?

Would you mind explaining what "works well" about your government? I've heard some bad things about Australia regarding telecommunications privacy, censorship laws and the public transport system, so I have a feeling there's quite a lot of room for improvement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave

can't comment for other Commonwealth nations but in Canada i think that would cause a major issue due to the members of the Senate being appointed until they hit 75.

Funny, this actually sounds potentially better than the situation we have in the U.S. where a lot of Congressmen get elected and then do jack shit in office so they can avoid controversy and keep voters appeased enough to get re-elected because they're doing "well enough". I really think there should just be no re-elections allowed and let "career politicians" rotate through different offices in the government if they really want to stay in. Not that it's ever going to happen that way.