US Presidential Candidates

I fail to understand how wanting a fair and efficient system is some socialist progressive agenda. A federal election should be run under consistent rules, not each of 50 states making it up the way it suits whoever is in power at the time.
Taking the argument to the extreme would see not the United States, but Texas negotiating on the world stage with countries that actually do have their act together.
The increasing US mantra of increasing state differences, and decreasing all aspects of a united modern developed country might not bode well for you in the future.

It comes back to the differences in perceived sovereignty. The preference for strong federal authority in a democratic republic denotes a view of sovereignty that only allows for the citizen to approve or disapprove of government's decisions, but not make those decisions for themselves. That view accepts the premise that it is government that makes policy for everyone. The dispersed power view is that the sovereignty resides in each individual or local polity to make as many choices as is practicable. The constant reversion to government making as many decisions as possible reduces the citizens individual sovereignty. Better to keep as much policy making as close to the individual as possible.

To each his own, but that pretty much covers the fundamental differences in world view in regards to sovereignty. Our world view seems in the ascendency, not yours. France is the next test of dispersed powers, I think.

You keep trying to make this claim, and you keep having it shot down. There is NO DIFFERENCE between most developed countries, the US included, when it comes to this sovereignty issue you keep trying to manufacture to claim the US is all special and unique.

PeterZ wrote:The preference for strong federal authority in a democratic republic denotes a view of sovereignty that only allows for the citizen to approve or disapprove of government's decisions, but not make those decisions for themselves.

Unless I missed something, the US is a representative democracy, in which the citizenry is allowed to approve or disapprove of their elected representatives actions through their votes cast in elections or other forms of expression, but they don't get to walk onto the floor of Congress and just start passing their own bills themselves... or walk into the Oval office and call a meeting with a foreign head of state to just implement foreign policy themselves based on their own decisions...

So. EXACTLY what you just said up there about every other developed nation you are speaking of.

That view accepts the premise that it is government that makes policy for everyone.

Like it does in the US. Every day. The government makes policy. For everyone. Once again, zero difference.

The dispersed power view is that the sovereignty resides in each individual or local polity to make as many choices as is practicable.

Which is the SAME THING that happens in pretty much all those other developed nations.

Really, gcomeau?

Sovereignty for Britain is held by government, not the individual citizen. France's constitution stipulates that sovereignty for its citizens only manifests when they act as a whole (in elections), but not for any smaller number of that citizenry acting in another fashion than an election.

In those systems then government holds to sovereignty to decide what rights their citizens do or do not have. The citizens can only approve or not through elections, they have no individual sovereignty.

Contrast that to the US where our constitution stipulates that all powers not granted explicitly to the Federal government is reserved for the people or the states. Sovereignty is not ceded to the federal government, but held in the hands of citizens and state governments. What ability to make policies that are not lent to the federal government are reserved for the US citizen.

Sorry, ol' buddy, but that's not the same as in those nations where sovereignty is held by the government, rather than the citizenry. Because US sovereignty resides in the states' and citizenry's hands rather than the federal, they have no authority to make policies in areas where they haven't been specifically granted authority. We govern ourselves in those areas. In other words we make our own individual policies in those areas.

While you are correct that technically the sovereignty is different however, gcomeau is correct that the day to day reality is basically the same.

PeterZ wrote:Really, gcomeau?

Sovereignty for Britain is held by government, not the individual citizen. France's constitution stipulates that sovereignty for its citizens only manifests when they act as a whole (in elections), but not for any smaller number of that citizenry acting in another fashion than an election.

In those systems then government holds to sovereignty to decide what rights their citizens do or do not have. The citizens can only approve or not through elections, they have no individual sovereignty.

Contrast that to the US where our constitution stipulates that all powers not granted explicitly to the Federal government is reserved for the people or the states. Sovereignty is not ceded to the federal government, but held in the hands of citizens and state governments. What ability to make policies that are not lent to the federal government are reserved for the US citizen.

Sorry, ol' buddy, but that's not the same as in those nations where sovereignty is held by the government, rather than the citizenry. Because US sovereignty resides in the states' and citizenry's hands rather than the federal, they have no authority to make policies in areas where they haven't been specifically granted authority. We govern ourselves in those areas. In other words we make our own individual policies in those areas.

PeterZ wrote:Really, gcomeau?

Sovereignty for Britain is held by government, not the individual citizen. France's constitution stipulates that sovereignty for its citizens only manifests when they act as a whole (in elections), but not for any smaller number of that citizenry acting in another fashion than an election.

You're arguing semantics that have zero practical import.

Are the law-making governments of both those nations elected by their citizens? Yes?

Then who is *ultimately* wielding all that sovereign power?

The citizens.

It's the citizens in the US. It's the citizens in Britain. It's the citizens in France. It's the citizens in Canada. It's the citizens in Australia. Etc...

I'll be boring, and mention yet again that we the Australian people sacked five PMs in five years, when they broke election promises and started to try and impliment their hidden agendas. Does the US system give that power to the people?
We have individual sovereignty, but don't carry on about it, you claim you have it but good luck getting your personal agenda up with the party machines.

The difference is where the authority to make most of those decision stems from. If sovereignty resides in government, citizens are subjects who are given privileges. If sovereignty resides predominantly in citizens, we have Liberty to make our own decisions.

If our authority is simply a privilege given to us by our sovereign government, then that privilege may be taken away legally. Our liberty is not a privilege. It is a recognition of our sovereignty and the limitations of government.

gcomeau wrote:
You're arguing semantics that have zero practical import.

Are the law-making governments of both those nations elected by their citizens? Yes?

Then who is *ultimately* wielding all that sovereign power?

The citizens.

It's the citizens in the US. It's the citizens in Britain. It's the citizens in France. It's the citizens in Canada. It's the citizens in Australia. Etc...

I read what you say and just shake my head. Regardless of whichever way you read it the average US citizen is no more possessing of individual sovereignty than any other citizen of a developed country. Neither are they any more empowered to make their own decisions than anyone else.
As I have pointed out other countries often have more responsive mechanisms. No way could you sack five presidents in five years as we did, and the Swiss have their referendas.
This seems to be a US right fantasy along with the belief that owning individual weapons would enable you to overthrow an elected government, and that it would be ethical to do so.

I wonder if Peter understands that in Australia, Soverign power explicitly lies with the people?

As it does in France.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk