One huge difference between the US form of government and the parliamentary form is the vote of no confidence. The parliament selects a group to form a government and that group acts like the US Executive Branch at the pleasure of the parliament. If the parliament is displeased with the Government, they can vote on a bill of no confidence. Once invoked that resolution automatically triggers new elections. Not only does a vote of no confidence express displeasure with the Government but also gives the voters a chance to express displeasure with the members of parliament for selecting these blockheads. Because many nations use at-large proportional representation rather than territorial districting like the US, parliaments and their governments are held hostage to shifting parliamentary coalitions. Territorial elections favor a two-party (or even a one party) system. At-large proportional representation militates toward a very large number of parties. Italy and Greece are the poster children for proportional representation. Their parliaments are comic operas and they often have multiple elections in a single year. Since Hussein Obama has come out so strongly for bombing Assad, does a Congressional failure to support such bombing not look like a vote of no-confidence to nations that use a parliamentary system? If Congress repudiates Hussein Obama on Syria, how can he negotiate with anybody? If Congress repudiates him, he can make no claim to representing the US in negotiations with other nations. Nobody negotiates with some flunky. They want to negotiate with the Big Guy. Much of the natural duty of a President is in the foreign affairs arena. Shorn of any pretense of speaking for the nation (by a repudiation on bombing Syria) Hussein Obama is crippled in this regard. If Congress fails to support bombing Syria (a statement of racism in the view of th MSM), Hussein Obama would be effectively unable to fulfill the duties of his office and should (like Nixon) resign and let Joe Biden (unburdened with any vote of no confidence) take over. One would hoppe Joe would learn from Hussein Obamas mistake and tend to be less bombastic. If Hussein Obama ignores the virtual no-confidence vote, he becomes a lame duck and will be til the next person is sworn in.
Hussein Obama climbed out on that limb of his own accord. Now he must eat crow and back down or find himself as the only hawk left.
Its pretty stupid how you use his middle name like its suppose to be some insult. Fact is you are against it because he is for it. Simple as that. And if Congress does not vote yes then he should obstruct and republican budget coming out of the house that does not give everything Obama and the Democrats wants.
We do impeachments. To say "vote of no confidence", Obama is not a monarchy, Obama is the results of the last presidential election. Hopefully we will survive until the next. They go like clockwork, but the Congress can overthrow Obama if he's a crook, but even so, it's still heartbreaking to do that. Now, if it happens that the President is asking Congress for permission to be commander-in-chief, that is not an authority the Congress has, the constitution has already decided that for the lot of them, so there is a tremendous weirdness about all this. I reckon the closest we got to such a thing as Prime Minister would be the Speaker of the House, but they do legislation and appropriation. Instead of the government face-off with opposition, they have time on the clock rationed out to each party, and they have committee hearings, and they have lobbyists. For to thrust the executive powers into that, to render the Speaker as the improvised defacto head of government, I think that would be a meltdown of the constitution. I'm not a lawyer, I don't know about such things as writs of attainder, but I don't know that the Congress has the right of way to simply pass a law that declares Syria of being guilty of anything, they are not the judicial branch either. They can declare war, though. That's what Congress does best. I wonder if anything like this Syrian Scandal ever happened before? It's truly astonishing.
Impeachment is dead letter. Senate Dems would never vote to remove a black Democrat no matter what atrocity he'd pulled.
