We have found out that presidential systems are more vulnerable to moving toward non-democratic solutions. Parliamentary systems have been adjusting by themselves. If the government is not doing whatever the population wants in a parliamentary system, then the government is going to fall. In a presidential system, this really does not exist. This is something that empirically has been demonstrated. The likelihood of survival of democracy is much greater in parliamentary systems than presidential systems. The United States obviously is the big exception to that. ...George Tsebelis, UMich political scientist
Except it no longer is. But, before you decide to take to the streets, read the whole interview with Tsebelis.
I'm with Jonathan Bernstein at Wonkblog. First of all, Harry Reid. Please remind Harry -- and if necessary, take him out back and rough him up a little -- to keep the filibuster rule-change threat alive. He doesn't have to wait for a new term. He can change the rules at any time, say the experts.
Having that power and using it is important to Dems right now.
The news today that the D.C. Circuit Court stripped presidential recess appointments out of the Constitution make it more important than ever for Democrats to use the leverage they have to keep the government functioning.
The appeals court ruled not just that the controversial Barack Obama recess appointments to the NLRB, but virtually all recess appointments as they’ve been practiced for over a century, are no longer constitutional. Of course, the Supreme Court will have to weigh in on this. But it’s a good reminder that in a game of checks and balances, you need to keep all your weapons available. ...Bernstein, Wonkblog, WaPo