United States an Empire?

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-02-13 12:57am

Bush may seem a bit power-hungry, but many politicians are abitious as such. He is far from a dictator/Tyrant due to checks/balances (senate and representive assemblies). We are more similiar to England's Constitutional Monarchy than an absolutist government such as what Louis XIV.

You cannot even compare the two. The president really has no significant power, the senate and the court do.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-02-13 12:59am

I thought the POTUS can send in the marines anywhere in the world in 24 hrs (the time might be an exaggeration, but I'm sure the authority is not). Also, the POTUS is the only guy who can authorise nuclear strikes, correct? That's some hefty power, right there.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2004-02-13 01:20am

Stofsk wrote:I thought the POTUS can send in the marines anywhere in the world in 24 hrs (the time might be an exaggeration, but I'm sure the authority is not). Also, the POTUS is the only guy who can authorise nuclear strikes, correct? That's some hefty power, right there.

And if he does so he finds the Senate breathing down his neck, or in the case of a nuclear strike damn near calling for his impeachment.

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-02-13 01:25am

I thought the POTUS can send in the marines anywhere in the world in 24 hrs (the time might be an exaggeration, but I'm sure the authority is not). Also, the POTUS is the only guy who can authorise nuclear strikes, correct? That's some hefty power, right there.
______

He has the ability to send troops anywhere with in a day, yes, but he cannot keep them there more than a month. This is one of those play-powers. If he does anything drastic, the rest of the government will hop on his ass about it.

Also, the POTUS is the only guy who can authorise nuclear strikes, correct? That's some hefty power, right there.

You are correct to my knowledge. I think, however, that the rest of the government must approve. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that he cannot just go nuking anyone he wants without sufficent reason and approval. There might be a clause under the War Powers Act.

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-02-13 01:32am

I just checked. The president does not have the power to declare war like i thought. Only the senate can do that. THe president has the ability to act quickly without the direct persmission of the Senate in dire circumstances or when war is already declared. This power, however, is very limited in the time it is applicable. I was wrong about the month. Troops have to be withdrawn or given senate approvale within 60 days. If there was no significant threat, severe punishments will be enacted upon the president.

Like almost anything, however, there might be ways to circumvent it through corruption. Actually, there are. Some presidents are in violation of the law.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power "to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal." But Article II, Section 2 provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." While it's clear that the Framers intended for Congress alone to declare war, presidents don't always check with Congress before acting.

In "theory" the president has no real power.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-02-13 01:46am

Alex Moon wrote:
Stofsk wrote:I thought the POTUS can send in the marines anywhere in the world in 24 hrs (the time might be an exaggeration, but I'm sure the authority is not). Also, the POTUS is the only guy who can authorise nuclear strikes, correct? That's some hefty power, right there.
And if he does so he finds the Senate breathing down his neck, or in the case of a nuclear strike damn near calling for his impeachment.

That isn't my point; my point is that the POTUS has the power invested in him. The shit with the senate is dealt with by a Leader, not as a function of the POTUS's powers and authority. There's a difference between the two.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-02-13 01:49am

Cornelius wrote:...Only the senate can do that...

I thought it was Congress?

..In "theory" the president has no real power.

Ah yes, but the "reality" is more important...

Anyway my original point is that he has power, but the nature of the US government is that powers are seperated to an extent, so no one person has absolute power.

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-02-13 02:25am

I thought it was Congress?

*oops* Yep

Its late! The words weren't following the brain.

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-02-13 02:28am

Although....the Senate IS the upper house of congress. Senate is half-right

Techno_Union · Post by **Techno_Union** » 2004-02-13 02:21pm

The President also has the power to suspend posse comitatus and habias corpus, thus allowing him to declare martial law. I am not sure if Congress can stop him from doing this or even end martial law.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2004-02-13 02:27pm

Stofsk wrote:
Alex Moon wrote:
Stofsk wrote:I thought the POTUS can send in the marines anywhere in the world in 24 hrs (the time might be an exaggeration, but I'm sure the authority is not). Also, the POTUS is the only guy who can authorise nuclear strikes, correct? That's some hefty power, right there.
And if he does so he finds the Senate breathing down his neck, or in the case of a nuclear strike damn near calling for his impeachment.
That isn't my point; my point is that the POTUS has the power invested in him. The shit with the senate is dealt with by a Leader, not as a function of the POTUS's powers and authority. There's a difference between the two.

What the hell do you mean? The POTUS's power is limited by the fact that anything he does comes under scrutiny by the Senate, which has the ability to reign him after 60 days, in the case of the military, and in the case of Nuclear weapons would impeach him and remove him from power if he used them. Both of these come directly from the Senate's powers and authority as defined by the Constitution.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-02-13 04:48pm

Cornelius wrote:I just checked. The president does not have the power to declare war like i thought. Only the senate can do that. THe president has the ability to act quickly without the direct persmission of the Senate in dire circumstances or when war is already declared. This power, however, is very limited in the time it is applicable. I was wrong about the month. Troops have to be withdrawn or given senate approvale within 60 days. If there was no significant threat, severe punishments will be enacted upon the president.
Like almost anything, however, there might be ways to circumvent it through corruption. Actually, there are. Some presidents are in violation of the law.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power "to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal." But Article II, Section 2 provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." While it's clear that the Framers intended for Congress alone to declare war, presidents don't always check with Congress before acting.
In "theory" the president has no real power.

Yeah, except that he's the official commander -in-chief of the armed forces, so as long as he does not officially declare war, he can intervene militarily. Basically your right, but I thinked the constitution writers made a slight goof on that- unless they planned on using the military to put down riots and revolutions, which it would be useful for.

The best example is Lincoln in the American civil war; he refused to ask for a declaration of war, instead choosing on calling the South's rebellion a domestic rebellion- which gave him more flexibility to put it down.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-02-13 06:41pm

The Framers did not intend the United States to have a standing army, which would make the President's power as commander-in-chief rather limited during peacetime. He could still make use of the Navy (see the quasi-war with France or the wars on the Barbary pirates), but since the Navy couldn't be used to oppress the people, that was acceptable to the Framers. The problem came when we realized that 90-day volunteers and state militias are nearly worthless in combat, and the march of technology made it impossible to call up an army fast enough to defend the country anyway.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-13 06:48pm

Techno_Union wrote:The President also has the power to suspend posse comitatus and habias corpus, thus allowing him to declare martial law. I am not sure if Congress can stop him from doing this or even end martial law.

That can only be done during a state of war in which the civilian courts are not operating due to duress, as per Ex Parte Milligan 71 US 2 1866.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-02-13 10:45pm

Alex Moon wrote:What the hell do you mean? The POTUS's power is limited by the fact that anything he does comes under scrutiny by the Senate, which has the ability to reign him after 60 days, in the case of the military, and in the case of Nuclear weapons would impeach him and remove him from power if he used them. Both of these come directly from the Senate's powers and authority as defined by the Constitution.

My point was that the President can send in the marines or whatever, and that's allowed under the rules, but dealing with the Senate/Congress about this is a test of the POTUS's leadership skills. Would the Senate/Congress go against the POTUS if they agree with him?

As it is now, from my understanding of it, there are checks and balances to prevent the President from going nuts and invading everybody. Fair enough, I wouldn't want it any other way, but the way you make it sound is that he's got all this power but can't use it because the Senate/Congress will be on him like a ton of bricks; if he's a good leader, they won't because he's already convinced them to be on his side.

(admittedly, I doubt anyone could be convinced to accept nuclear strikes upon anyone, unless it's retaliatory or against a clear and present danger - however you define that, though...)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-13 11:14pm

American social arguments can be amusing. Americans love the underdog, and they love movies and books and scenarios in which they play that role. Great films like "Rocky" come to mind. The problem is that they are not the underdog, and there is no end of discomfort about this fact.

Why should Americans be so upset at the accusation that they are an Empire? Because they're uncomfortable being called an Empire, even if they do fit at least one of the dictionary definitions. They'd rather be referred to as the scrappy underdogs, still fighting the revolutionary war against the Old World.

Look at all the rhetoric about "freedom"; who do Americans need to fight for freedom from? Is there anyone who stands a realistic chance of subjugating Americans? The only ones who can impinge upon American freedom right now are Americans themselves. But that goes against their desire to be seen as the underdogs, so they must continue to concoct reasons to believe that they are the ones fighting for freedom. Here's a hint: when you're the King, you don't need to worry about freedom from anyone or anything; people need to worry about freedom from you.

When Americans are accused of being an Empire, they should respond not by denying their imperialism, but by acknowledging it and then demanding that their detractors prove they're a bad Empire rather than a good one.

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2004-02-13 11:25pm

Actually the dictionary definition of imperialism is slightly inaccurate.

Imperialism is an effort by a nation state to significantly alter the status quo in the international system to the advantage of that nation state.

Thus imperialistic power isn't limted to imposing direct control or influence over other nations, but it's also means attempts to gain power and influence in and over the international system. The international system being defined by the realtionships between the actors in the system.

So say France decides it wants to replace the US as the superpower on Earth, then any action France takes to achieve that goal will be by definition imperialism, even if it involves no direct action against another nation.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-02-13 11:48pm

What Americans resent, Wong, is that there seems to be a particular belief that we exclusively practice forms of imperialism, when it is, in fact, a universal pasttime as which we simply happen to be exceptionally successful for various reasons.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-13 11:52pm

Axis Kast wrote:What Americans resent, Wong, is that there seems to be a particular belief that we exclusively practice forms of imperialism, when it is, in fact, a universal pasttime as which we simply happen to be exceptionally successful for various reasons.

"Dreams of Empire" != "Actual Empire", dumb-ass.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-02-14 12:18am

Stofsk wrote:
Alex Moon wrote:What the hell do you mean? The POTUS's power is limited by the fact that anything he does comes under scrutiny by the Senate, which has the ability to reign him after 60 days, in the case of the military, and in the case of Nuclear weapons would impeach him and remove him from power if he used them. Both of these come directly from the Senate's powers and authority as defined by the Constitution.
My point was that the President can send in the marines or whatever, and that's allowed under the rules, but dealing with the Senate/Congress about this is a test of the POTUS's leadership skills. Would the Senate/Congress go against the POTUS if they agree with him?

As it is now, from my understanding of it, there are checks and balances to prevent the President from going nuts and invading everybody. Fair enough, I wouldn't want it any other way, but the way you make it sound is that he's got all this power but can't use it because the Senate/Congress will be on him like a ton of bricks; if he's a good leader, they won't because he's already convinced them to be on his side.

(admittedly, I doubt anyone could be convinced to accept nuclear strikes upon anyone, unless it's retaliatory or against a clear and present danger - however you define that, though...)

How is this different than any other country? Once the government is essentially in concert and agreement, its obvious that nothing would stop it.

This applies to Australia to, you're just not the subject of the situation because you're not a very powerful imperialist nation.

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2004-02-14 12:32am

One more thing:

Actions intended to maintain currently existing power, or to maintain the status quo in the international system is not imperialism. In fact it's the exact opposite of imperialism.

So if some nation was threatening the US position as global superpower, and the US decided to stomp said nation to maintain it's superpower status, that's a status quo action and not imperialism.

If the US decided to stomp out a nation to further US dominance, that would be imperialism.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-02-14 12:38am

Lord MJ wrote:One more thing:

Actions intended to maintain currently existing power, or to maintain the status quo in the international system is not imperialism. In fact it's the exact opposite of imperialism.

So if some nation was threatening the US position as global superpower, and the US decided to stomp said nation to maintain it's superpower status, that's a status quo action and not imperialism.

If the US decided to stomp out a nation to further US dominance, that would be imperialism.

That sounds like semantics. Once you define yourself as an empire, maintaining that status quo is, in itself, imperialism.

Techno_Union · Post by **Techno_Union** » 2004-02-14 12:59am

I myself would not mind being called an "Empire" because nothing much would change. How does this pledge sound, "I pledge of allegiance and to the flag and the Imperial States of America, and to the Empire (Republic mabye, more then likely Empire), for which it stands, one nation under God, individual, with liberty, and justice for all."

Even if the name of the US would cahnge to ISA, the US would stay the same becuase regaurdless of name, we still act like an Empire sometimes. I am still loyal to the USA and that would not change even if the name is ISA.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-02-14 01:03am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:How is this different than any other country? Once the government is essentially in concert and agreement, its obvious that nothing would stop it.

It isn't. I never said otherwise.

This applies to Australia to, you're just not the subject of the situation because you're not a very powerful imperialist nation.

Agreed. My original post was in reply to someone saying the POTUS has no real power, which I pointed out and said "Hey, he actually does have power." I wasn't criticising the US.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2004-02-14 02:12am

Tough to be the underdogs when you have the best guns around.

Oh well, may be a good solution to this is to cede the role of superpower to someone else.... let's see, Cameroon comes to mind... how about Haiti or may be India. I think everyone should have their turn running an empire. I mean, heck, that's fair isn't it?

Actually, India is probably not a bad choice, the world's most populus democracy.

Although I have to say, I don't like the dictionary definition of empire much, I mean empire should have the feel of all encompassing... dominate everything... that type of deal.

Now, the Mongols, they had an empire. Too bad that their political system such as it were did not allow them to maintain that empire. Heh, the funny thing is, the Mongol empire came about and fell apart for the same reason, their cult of personality and their system of government... such as it was. But no matter what, they were probably the first ones to adapt real mobile warfare, and that has to count for something.