Palin's medical records?

[superstring01]

if you cant trust someone to step down when they are impared why are you electing them? why dont you have system in place to deal with impared presidents?

We do. The Constitution provides for such cases. In the mid sixties there was this "scare" about the vagueness in the Constitution on such matters. It
occurred to people that there wasn't a clear procedure for how to handle presidential sickness and or debilitation. Therefore the XXV Amendment was adopted to provide guidance in this area:

Amendment XXV.
Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.

SECTION 1.
In case of the removal of the President from office or of
his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become
President.

SECTION 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President,
the President shall nominate a Vice President who
shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of
both Houses of Congress.

SECTION 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that he is unable
to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until
he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary,
such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice
President as Acting President.

SECTION 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the
principal officers of the executive departments or of such
other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the
President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives their written declaration that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of
his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the
powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President
pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists,
he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless
the Vice President and a majority of either the principal
officers of the executive department or of such other body
as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days
to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House of Representatives their written declaration
that the President is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the
issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose
if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days
after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress
is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is
required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both
Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers
and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to
discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President
shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

~String

 

[Asguard]

complicated, our system is much easier

the GG fires the PM and\or his party vote against him
Of course the GG using those powers would start a consitutional crisis but better that than having a PM who tried to invade china

 

[superstring01]

complicated, our system is much easier

Have you ever noticed your obsessive, even childish, criticism of the United State's government, its structure and constitution? Seriously, I can count at least five times in the last two or three months where you've directed criticism at the USA because of the structure of the government. I get the criticism of the policies, but the criticism of something you don't like, which has relatively little effect on you, is beyond my comprehension.

Isn't it funny, that you, an avowed liberal, are so pathetically hateful about anything American? Every chance you get, you throw a stab. Where's the open-mindedness?

How would it make you feel if I sat around criticizing the internal mechanisms of Australia? Even more importantly, would it matter?

Note: I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "invade China".

~String

 

[Asguard]

i was picking a compleatly suicidel and insane move by the PM which would illict action by the GG and INSTANT mutiny by the political party he is a member of

And yes i do find serious flaws in your system of goverment, its to executively run with very limited to no effective oposition to the party in power.

I LIKE the westimister system, its THE most stable form of goverment on currently avilable

 

[superstring01]

And yes i do find serious flaws in your system of goverment, its to executively run with very limited to no effective oposition to the party in power.

Presidential decisions and initiatives are stopped and curved all the time. You just don't pay enough attention to notice.

I LIKE the westimister system, its THE most stable form of goverment on currently avilable

Right. That's a statement of oppinion dressed up like a fact. Such boldness either makes you stupid or a liar. You have no way of knowing what is more stable. Parliamentary governments (and the WS is one of them) have a long and shady record as well. The fact that the WS is stable is LESS a measure of the system and more a measure of the single greatest gift of England to places like Australia and the USA: internal stability and a strong civic virtue. Australia and the USA could have the fracking Weimar Republican government or the Japanese imperial Diet, and we'd still be stable and prosperous: it's our cultural heritage. It's because of this, and only this, that your government and my government "appears" to be so stable. But don't be fooled into thinking that the government structure will ensure a future of peace and prosperity. That comes from the people and their continued support.

No form of government can last long without a strong culture to support it. Take a look at places where the Westminster System had been exported where the British culture never took hold: Jamaica, Bangladesh, Pakistan, South Africa, Nigeria, etcetera.

It isn't the "system", Asguard, that is so stable. It's the people. That's you've missed this glaring fact is telling of just how hateful you really are and how badly you hide it.

~String

 

[John99]

Right. That's a statement of oppinion dressed up like a fact...

~String

He should run for office.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

tiassa you do see that this could be used against women as an excuse to keep them out of office? I know that route is SLIGHTLY convoluted but it COULD be said that "women get irrational once a month, post menapause MOST women are irrational at random times, there for women cant be trusted to be president"

Does that sort of logic that fly Down Under? I mean, I recognize that it could be said, but then women shouldn't be allowed to drive, use dangerous tools such as knives in restaurant kitchens or saws on construction sites, or even attend to their children during those days. It's a dangerous path that all but a few in this country would laugh at.

Not to mention what if a potentual president had herpies and didnt want that known?
or worse was HIV positive or had Hep C

I don't consider any of those things disqualifying, though. I mean, fuck, if I am supposed to trust someone with the launch codes, I'm pretty sure I can trust them with herpes.

as i said in another thread there are very specific reasons why medical records are compleatly sealed, the ONLY people alowed access are the pt and other medical personal responcable for treatment WITH THE PTS PERMISSION. mental health records are even MORE tightly sealed (i atend a medical clinic with both GP's and psychs and the psychs dont intergrate there system with the GP's for presisly this reason)

Many people held that Michael Dukakis' treatment for depression earlier in his life was a disqualifying condition. I thought that was a bit low, since senility was supposed to be beyond question.

besides which it isnt going to actually be useful to get someones current medical records because tomorow they could be compleatly different.

Sure, but medical history can be important. Cheney was elected VP, and he had something like five heart attacks. It's not like the bar is difficult to clear in the people's judgment. The people want to know. After all, they are asked in job applications or interviews to state in advance any medical or psychiatric conditions the employer needs to know about in order to accommodate in general or treat under emergency circumstances. And, yes, you can be fired for lying about that sort of thing. I don't know if you've noticed, but the president can't be fired for lying during the campaign.

complicated, our system is much easier

the GG fires the PM and\or his party vote against him
Of course the GG using those powers would start a consitutional crisis but better that than having a PM who tried to invade china

Dude, you don't even vote for the fucking PM, except by proxy and convention. And it's a lot easier to dismiss an appointed official than remove an elected one.

And, by the way, which constitutional crisis would that be? The one waiting to occur when someone finally makes a point of the fact that there is no such office as Prime Minister of Australia in the Constitution?

Shit, dude, at least our president exists on paper. I know, I know, it's a lot more complicated that way, but still ....

 

[Asguard]

no the consitutional crisis would be how much power does the GG actually have left, most of the reserve powers have never been tested in court to see if they would still be alowed. The only time i can think of off the top of my head that ANY of them have been used was the dismissal of the wittlam goverment.

Your right though that the executive the constiution mentions is the GG and nothing more, yet the high court isnt going to overrule the majority will of the people that the goverment be members of the house of reps (which begs the question WHY does the PM and the treasurer have to be members of the house of reps not the senate, i should check that)

 

[Tiassa]

A random speculation

which begs the question WHY does the PM and the treasurer have to be members of the house of reps not the senate, i should check that

If I were a betting man, my early wager would be on the idea that those people should come from the lower house.

 

[madanthonywayne]

The fact that the WS is stable is LESS a measure of the system and more a measure of the single greatest gift of England to places like Australia and the USA: internal stability and a strong civic virtue. Australia and the USA could have the fracking Weimar Republican government or the Japanese imperial Diet, and we'd still be stable and prosperous: it's our cultural heritage. It's because of this, and only this, that your government and my government "appears" to be so stable. But don't be fooled into thinking that the government structure will ensure a future of peace and prosperity. That comes from the people and their continued support.

No form of government can last long without a strong culture to support it. Take a look at places where the Westminster System had been exported where the British culture never took hold: Jamaica, Bangladesh, Pakistan, South Africa, Nigeria, etcetera.

It isn't the "system", Asguard, that is so stable. It's the people.

Very true. Is there a greater predictor of success for a nation than to have been an English colony long enough for its culture and traditions to take hold?

 

[Asguard]

If I were a betting man, my early wager would be on the idea that those people should come from the lower house.

tiassa its not a precident but rather a requirement. The PM MUST be a member of the lower house as must the deputy PM and the treasurer and possably the finance minster (though im not 100% sure on that one)

Im reasonably confident that i know why the treasurer is a member of the house, the consitution states that ALL apropriations bills must have the house of reps as there origionating house.

The problem with all of this stuff is you cant just read the consititution alone and take that as the only source of the influance on governance in the country. ALOT of our law is common law which came from england, then there is statitory law which has been passed and lastly the consitution

 

[Asguard]

BTW, your statement doesnt make any sence. I just told you they all have to be members of the house of reps and then you said "if you were a betting man you would bet they came from the house of reps"

Of course they do, the question was WHY not IF

 

[Tiassa]

Holdover from Britain?

I just told you they all have to be members of the house of reps and then you said "if you were a betting man you would bet they came from the house of reps"

Of course they do, the question was WHY not IF

No ... I said my early wager would be on the idea that those people should come from the lower house.

The lower house in a bicameral legislature tends to have lesser requirements for membership. This is true for the U.S. House of Representatives and, insofar as I understand it, British House of Commons.

In the case of the British, whence your Australian system is derived, the House of Lords was, at one time, hereditary. It is now appointed. The House of Commons is elected. I would have to dig through the specific history of the evolution of both nations' offices of prime minster, but as the people gained power, the pretense of elevating a hereditary or appointed Lord to the office of Prime Minister seems absolutely absurd. In this sense, the elevation of a prime minister from the lower house is a nod to the notion that the people have some say in the office.

It is likely, then, in the Australian case—as I said, I would have to dig through the specific history—that the PM comes from the lower house as a holdover from the evolution of Britain's system.

That's still a bit speculative; I'm scrabbling up a few facts here and there to compare my suspicion against the notion of what genuine historical hypothesis the record will reveal. And, in truth, I'm listening to a seven and a half year-old radio program at the moment, so the idea only has part of my attention.

 

[Asguard]

oh i knew that, and your right. It would just be interesting to see if its a costom or if its a requirement.

you want to know some other quaint coustoms, the GG is NEVER alowed to step into the house on pain of death (litterally, the sargent at arms would be required to shoot him\her)

Now this sounds really really stupid but again it goes back to england when the house of commons passed a law that the king at the time didnt like. he broke into the house and killed the PM on the spot. Therefore a law was passed which said that the crown may NEVER enter the house and this was passed on to Australia

Ok fair enough, quaint coustom. Except that the crown (the GG) is required to open every new parliment and because of this coustom has to do it from the senate. So the senate chamber had to be built big enough to hold the whole senate AND the whole of the house of reps. Yet its the house of reps which has more members so the senate chamber ALWAYS looks empty even when every sentor is in there

 

[one_raven]

no the consitutional crisis would be how much power does the GG actually have left, most of the reserve powers have never been tested in court to see if they would still be alowed. The only time i can think of off the top of my head that ANY of them have been used was the dismissal of the wittlam goverment.

Interesting to have said this after claiming it is the most stable government in the world.

 

[ElectricFetus]

What you're forgetting is that slavery, killing savages, treating women poorly etc. were hardly unique. It was the way of the world. The idea of limited government and the inalienable rights of man were. So I choose to judge them by the unique good they brought rather than the age old evils they inherited. Furthermore, within a hundred years we had eliminated slavery. Not long after, women were given the vote. These practices had been around for millennia, basically all of human history. You'll forgive the founding fathers for not righting all the worlds wrongs at once.

Sure it was the way of the world then, so don't think about calling the funding fathers enlightened, they were no more enlightened than any other rich white non-royal patriarchs of the time, they simply had the means and opportunity to implement their ideals. I'm simply saying they were mortal and that they made mistakes, even in the constitution.

Interesting to have said this after claiming it is the most stable government in the world.

Stability does not mean it is perfect or even great. Many dynasties lasted longer then the USA.

 

[superstring01]

Sure it was the way of the world then, so don't think about calling the funding fathers enlightened, they were no more enlightened than any other rich white non-royal patriarchs of the time, they simply had the means and opportunity to implement their ideals. I'm simply saying they were mortal and that they made mistakes, even in the constitution.

That part was obvious. What wasn't obvious and was revolutionary for the time was the unbending bill of rights, right to own property, the right for any person--no matter what his bloodline--to become someone with power. This was not normal and was really quite revolutionary.

~String

 

[one_raven]

Stability does not mean it is perfect or even great. Many dynasties lasted longer then the USA.

Of course.

 

[ElectricFetus]

That part was obvious. What wasn't obvious and was revolutionary for the time was the unbending bill of rights, right to own property, the right for any person--no matter what his bloodline--to become someone with power. This was not normal and was really quite revolutionary.

~String

The only part revolutionary was the revolutions, the ideas were quite normal, its just few had the means and courage to implement it, and once the USA showed it could be done everyone else figured it was worth a try.

 

[superstring01]

The only part revolutionary was the revolutions, the ideas were quite normal, its just few had the means and courage to implement it, and once the USA showed it could be done everyone else figured it was worth a try.

Wrong. Having a written-in-stone bill of rights that could not be touched but upon exceptional circumstances WAS extraordinary. The notion was rooted in the UK, but even there the Magna Carta and other sundry works were thrown out regularly to serve political purposes.

And, look how many tried and failed over the next 150 years make the move to constitutional republics.

~String