You got to love that, the politicising of a legal system is great because sometimes the people you appoint don't act the way you expect... again, you do realise Freedom is just an allusion???
Sometimes, I ponder how badly Senators are as President. Meaning being a good legislator is not the same as being a good chief executive Occasionally, we elect a State Governor to the presidency. Or give one high consideration. My fav is James Knox Polk. Gov. Tennessee. One term President. Created the continental although he unfortunately settled on the 49th rather than 54'40" as promised. He also did some good stuff for the security of currency and banking. A Jacksonian Democrat. POINT: In the UnFree situation of Australia, you are unable to elect an admirable State Governor to be the nation's Chief Executive. Is that correct? Speak clearly into the microphone please. BTW what do you call the chief executive of one of downunder's States or Territories? Premier? Governing council? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Victoria Consider Victoria State, Executive power rests formally with the Executive Council, which consists of the Governor and senior ministers. In practice, executive power is exercised by the Premier of Victoria, who is appointed by the Governor and who hold office by virtue of his or her ability to command the support of a majority of members of the Legislative Assembly, and the Cabinet designated by the Premier to the Governor. The Cabinet is the government's chief policy-making organ, and consists of the Premier and all ministers. So who is "in charge"? Please correct any perceived misconception. Except the conclusion of being, UnFree. Moi Support the Separation of Powers. Dump Westminster System of UnFree Democracy. Don't ize Australia
So we can correct anything you got wrong except for your perception of freedom??? You have to be kidding...
I have laid out the argument for being unfree. If my facts are wrong, educate me. Then, after, declare a difference to being, unfree. But, the discussion is primarily NOT about Free vs UnFree but rather, how corralled Aussies are in choosing a national chief executive. =unfree A State governor was brought up as an example. A really successful State Governor or Primer cannot be boosted to the National office. You really should drop those Westminster protocols and go for the tried and tested Separation of Powers. ala American That is the point. American Governors to President James Knox Polk Franklin Roosevelt Bush, Jr. Jimmy Carter Ronald Reagan http://governors.rutgers.edu/on-gov...e-white-house/governors-who-became-president/ 3 Thomas Jefferson 1801-1809 Virginia 1779-1781 No 5 James Monroe 1817-1825 Virginia 1799-1802 No 8 Martin Van Buren 1837-1841 New York 1829 No 10 John Tyler 1841-1845 Virginia 1825-1826 No** 11 James K. Polk 1845-1849 Tennessee 1839-1841 No 17 Andrew Johnson 1865-1869 Tennessee 1853-1857 No** 19 Rutherford B. Hayes 1877-1881 Ohio 1868-1872; 1876-1877 Yes 22 Grover Cleveland 1885-1889 New York 1883-1884 Yes* 24 Grover Cleveland 1893-1897 New York 1883-1884 No* 25 William McKinley 1897-1901 Ohio 1892-1896 Yes 26 Theodore Roosevelt 1901-1909 New York 1899-1900 Yes*** 28 Woodrow Wilson 1913-1921 New Jersey 1911-1913 Yes 30 Calvin Coolidge 1923-1929 Massachusetts 1919-1920 Yes*** 32 Franklin Roosevelt 1933-1945 New York 1929-1932 Yes 39 Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 Georgia 1971-1974 No 40 Ronald Reagan 1981-1989 California 1967-1974 No 42 Bill Clinton 1993-2001 Arkansas 1979-1980; 1983-1993 Yes 43 George W. Bush Not doable downunder. Got FREEDOM? Moi Don't ize Australia
Well I would consider a discussion on the point except as with many Australians you clearly don't understand the powers and were they lay. You suggest this is not about freedom yet you claim Australia is lacking freedom because... Umm we don't elect somebody oh wait.. The national chief executive. Except Australia does, even down to the governor of both state and federal. No, a really successful state governor or Premier cannot be boosted to national status, dead right. And tell why they should??? Just who should decide their promotion other than the Australian people??? And YES Australian’s can elect them to represent them nationally. At this point, Australia votes for who should be leading their nation, not by state legislature but direct election. Unlike America where state electorate collectively elects their head of state from a choice of candidates carefully selected by a small group of people. Yeah that is true freedom where you vote only counts as long as it agrees with your state. You really have a strange idea of what freedom is. I know it is a construct but most do understand the limits. Oh and seperation of powers... just how do you do that when your government selects (not elects) your judges...
Exactly, That's Why YOU Need a Separation of powers. BTW Senators use to be appointed by the States, that was changed by constitutional amendment. If I do not seem to understand the workings of your downunder gov't please educate me. Need coffee now
Here is another example of the hypocrisy today. Government seems to find it OK for the church to discriminate specially around sexual orientation. We have just uncovered a horrifically institutionalised amount of child sexual abuse by clergy and teaching staff of religious schools. We have heard though that some won't accept students of gay parents .
When you consider it all, are we on our own? Can't trust cops or the clergy. Our parliament isn't that squeaky clean either. (A permanent ICAC might be a good idea.) I don't know if you remember the Beach enquiry into our state police? That sorted things out for a while. Mr Justice Beach would have been one of those hanging judges I think and he took no nonsense. Perhaps we should just leave it to Four Corners to ferret around and unearth evil doings. They did a good job of exposing those slippery crooks in QLD.
Moi: I suggest you have no idea of the concept. Google it. Also Google ~ 'Westminster system.' Then get back to us.
I uploaded several times about, please educate me on what part of the system I don't get. In praise of Separation of Powers, We can elect a President who may have been a State governor. Senators often assume they are Presidential material but, I think governors are better executives than legislators. Aussies cannot. Eisenhower was a total outsider to the political arena, as was Trump, let's not argue Trump please, Aussies cannot. When the Constitution was drafted there were those who did not trust the unwashed poor. So protections were put in such as the appointment of Senators and the Electoral College. Direct election of Senators was the product of a Constitutional amendment. And speaking of protection from the unwashed poor, that is what your party based system is about. Everything so controlled. You could stand primaries within your parties rather than just party candidate against other party candidates. PLEASE WHAT PART DO I HAVE INCORRECT. Moi Don't ize Australia
That's it. And neither gets involved in the 'affairs' of the other........roight...............except in
We call it "Checks and Balances" Each branch has powers to reign in the authority of the other. There have been power shifts. Like after the War Between The States, the power was Congress, not the President. Teddy Roosevelt brought power back to the presidency.
After just spending three months in the USA, and seeing what a toilet it is, I dont think anyone from the USA should be criticising another country. The USA is a circus, maybe some Americans should visit other countries like I did before attacking them..then they would realise just how poorly run America is...
