I recently rewatched a few of the classic movies, and one aspect had me second-guessing a couple of things.
Looking at the two Federation Presidents as depicted in TUC, and in DS9's "Homefront", they seem to be in-line with what we would call "Presidential duties" by today's definition. Especially taking American presidents like Barack Obama or George W. Bush into consideration as our relevant examples.
However, the very first time we ever see a Federation President is in TVH, when he's presiding over what essentially amounts to a military tribunal (or the StarFleet equivalent thereof.) My question is, when have we *ever* seen any president exercising any kind of Judicial authority whatsoever -- outside of simply appointing the justices who *would* exercise that authority? Would that be a violation of "Separation of Powers"?
In the US government (the one I know best since I'm American), the closest equivalent I can think of would be the Vice-President, in his role as President of the Senate, who has the authority to preside over political impeachments (unless his boss the President is impeached, in which case the Chief Justice steps in.)
Kirk and company's crimes were not necessarily political in nature, the Klingon Ambassador's opinions notwithstanding; why did they need the President to act as their judge when they were on trial for the prior movie's events?
Looking at the two Federation Presidents as depicted in TUC, and in DS9's "Homefront", they seem to be in-line with what we would call "Presidential duties" by today's definition. Especially taking American presidents like Barack Obama or George W. Bush into consideration as our relevant examples.
However, the very first time we ever see a Federation President is in TVH, when he's presiding over what essentially amounts to a military tribunal (or the StarFleet equivalent thereof.) My question is, when have we *ever* seen any president exercising any kind of Judicial authority whatsoever -- outside of simply appointing the justices who *would* exercise that authority? Would that be a violation of "Separation of Powers"?
In the US government (the one I know best since I'm American), the closest equivalent I can think of would be the Vice-President, in his role as President of the Senate, who has the authority to preside over political impeachments (unless his boss the President is impeached, in which case the Chief Justice steps in.)
Kirk and company's crimes were not necessarily political in nature, the Klingon Ambassador's opinions notwithstanding; why did they need the President to act as their judge when they were on trial for the prior movie's events?