Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog
This is concerning to me. It sounds as if your perception is that the President of the United States is declared supreme leader for four years. As a matter of origin, the the President is routinely denied authority on matter based on our separation of powers.
Part of me is concerned this is somehow coloring your view on Republic's in general. Is it?
|
To be honest I don't know much about how the constitution or how politics work in the United States so chances are I'm mistaken about my beliefs. Our Prime Minister must work hand in hand with parliament, and parliament has the power to convene elections for a new prime minister if they do not believe in the decisions the prime minister has made. I thought the president does not have to answer to the senate or the house unless he or she has committed an illegal act. Which essentially I thought means more power is given to one singular person. I may be wrong, so apologies if I am.
This may be indeed colouring my view on a republic, but not to any significant extent. My main argument on not becoming a republic is the fact that there are more positives than negatives about being affiliated with Britain, and also that everything is working fine the way it is now so why try to change it.