EU Portal .net

Hey Americans! What do you think of your Federalism?

This is a questions for all the politically interested people. Me living in Sweden with not much vertical division of power getting sucked into a European Union in a structure similar to federalism.

Believe me, your grammer is a LOT better than many ‘native born’ English speakers who post questions here.

Well, you might start by reading our US Constitution in its entirety.

We failed as a country under the Articles of Confederation because there was no strong central government to bind us all together (the varous states). Only after the adoption of the Constitution did the centralized federal government take shape.

We fought a Civil War, that was essentially caused by some states (southern slave states) feeling that the Federal Government had grown too powerful and was dictating too many things that should be left up to the individual states. Slavery was one of those issues, and the United States nearly ripped itself apart during those years.

We have three branches: The Executive (President and law enforcement), the Legislative (Congress) and Judicial (The Supreme Court).

We have a system of checks and balances to ensure the NO branch becomes MORE powerful or able to dictate laws and ordinances to the nation.

You know we elect a president every 4 years. We elect our representatives (Senate and House Representative). The Legislative branch is even set up so that no one popoulous state can dictate policy. That is, bills and legislation have to make it past both houses: The senate consists of two representatives elected from each state, while the House consists of representatives electeed based on population. Hence no side can really ‘control’.

Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, to ensure they have no personal political ambitions to push. The process involves nomination of a candidate by the President, and approval by Congress.

The President essentially proposes budgets and spending plans on how to run the government. Congress can approve, amend or reject a budget. The president can propose a bill to the Congress, and they can enact it (or reject it). It undergoes a review by the Supreme Court to deem it constitutional or not. If it is deemed not constitutional, it gets ’struck down’ and they have to start over. Congress can initiate legislation, which, if voted YES to, gets sent to the President’s desk for approval. IF he signs it and approves it, it gets enacted (after judicial review, of course). If he rejects it, he vetos it (“I forbid”) and sends it back, where it has to be voted on AGAIN by Congress (a 2/3 majority is essential to override a veto). IF overidden, it becomes law. If not, it dies. The President can use what is called a “pocket veto”:

A pocket veto is a legislative maneuver in American federal lawmaking that allows the President to indirectly veto a bill. The U.S. Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not including Sundays) while the United States Congress is in session. From the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 7 states:

“… If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. ”

If the President does not sign the bill within the required time period, the bill becomes law by default. However, the exception to this rule is if Congress adjourns before the ten days have passed and the President has not yet signed the bill. In such a case, the bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not actually, vetoed. If the President does sign the bill, it becomes law. Ignoring legislation, or “putting a bill in one’s pocket” until Congress adjourns is thus called a pocket veto. Since Congress cannot vote while in adjournment, a pocket veto cannot be overridden (but see below). James Madison became the first president to use the pocket veto in 1812.[1]

As to everyday life? I think that with regards to everyday LIFE, the local governments (city and COUNTY) have more impact on that.

As to income tax, yes, we have to pay income tax to the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) in order to run the government (one source of funding, enacted by the 16th Amendment). The amount of tax varies and has a lot to do with how much ’spending’ money a person or family has.

Our system of government isn’t perfect – in fact, it is very flawed, but compared to other countries, it’s as pure as the driven snow. We have a press and media that will investigate and bring down corrupt politicians, etc.

But crooked dealings do go on, and you can actually make a career in lobbying in Washington D.C for causes and people and reasons that want particular favoritism from the government.

I guess the system we have worked great for the type of country we had initially become, and the Constitution, is a living document, and can be amended, but not that easily (which is a good thing) – Since the adoption of the Constitution, it has only been amended 26 times in over two centuries. Some countries devalue their currency more times than that in a year.

But the BIG advantage of our sytem is:
Our government is very stable, and transfers of power from one political party to another are very smooth and peaceful transitions – I think that is one of the great benefits of our system. It allows us to be different yet united.

Some people will (mistakenly) believe or think that the President is the one responsible for ‘creating jobs’. That is a wrong idea. The main basis of this country is capitalism and that involves a lot more than a president ‘creating jobs’. The ONLY president I know of who “created jobs” was Franklin D. Roosevelt when he created the PWA (Public Works Agency0 during the Great Depression to MAKE jobs for people (essentially it was government aid, like welfare but at that time you actually HAD TO WORK FOR IT).

As you can probably see in here, we are not sold on the idea of a United Nations, a European Union or even a North American Union. I do not see how European countries could relegate their independence to a European Union. After all, the history of Europe is thousands of years of war. But you never know.

As to today, it is BIG and BLOATED. There are many things that a lot of US Citizens feel that the government should NOT be involved in and there are things that people feel the government should be MORE involved in. It’d cite specific things but that would require more space than is available here!

Ron Paul: The Power Structure 1of5 (must see classic interview from 1988)

Neorealism and Neoliberalism $25.00 In light of the recent demise of the Soviet Union and the subsequent withdrawal of Soviet forces from Central Europe, the debate between neoliberal institutionalism and neorealism has taken on a new relevance. Neorealism and Neoliberalism concentrates on issues of conflict and cooperation with their implications for post-Cold War international relations.Essays by some of today’s most prominent po…

Contending with Stalinism: Soviet Power and Popular Resistance in the 1930s $17.97 Resistance has become an important and controversial analytical category for the study of Stalinism. The opening of Soviet archives allows historians an unprecedented look at the fabric of state and society in the 1930s. Researchers long spellbound by myths of Russian fatalism and submission as well as by the very real powers of the Stalinist state are startled by the dimensions of popular resista…

The Oligarchs: Wealth And Power In The New Russia $21.95 David Hoffman, former Moscow bureau chief for The Washington Post, sheds light onto the hidden lives of Russia’s most feared power brokers: the oligarchs. Focusing on six of these ruthless men Hoffman reveals how a few players managed to take over Russia’s cash-strapped economy and then divvy it up in loans-for-shares deals. Before perestroika, these men were normal Soviet citizens, stuck in a de…