Duties of the Federation President

[Ensign_Redshirt]

The term President wasn't invented by the USA, I will grant you that that the USA was the first to use it to mean the Head of State but the term President was in use before then.

I know. But how it is relevant?

But in the case of China, the President is the head of State but the Premier is the head of Government.

The same is true for India. Although in China's case, the president is in fact more powerful than the premier, while India is the country where the prime minister is running the show.

But other countries have had an impact on the political systems around the world as whilst other frms exist we basically have the Parliamentary(sometimes called Westminster) system or the Presidential System. Both systems have their pros and cons.

That's more or less my point. The United States invented the presidential system, which essentially means that America came up with one of the two dominant forms of government which are in use around the world today. The other one was invented in Britain.

Interestingly, the United States did so at a time when it neither had a very large population nor were a very powerful country. But it was considered a very good idea. That's something we have to factor in too.

China always had an extremely huge population and was a influential power for most time in history. Nevertheless, no country in the world is currently ruled by an absolute emperor. And there are only four other countries in the world which still follow the traditional "Marxist-Leninist" model of government.

So, the Chinese could propose anything they'd like. It still wouldn't make much difference if the rest of world considers it a shitty idea.

 

[kirkfan]

^That's very simplistic as for example France's head of state is called "President" but other than that they don't have much in common, the voting system is completely different, the extent of his powers is completely different, the way the candidates are selected is also different. All you have in common is a NAME.

By any other name, a rose would smell as sweet, but here you have the name "rose" and a whole bunch of very different flowers being called that.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

^That's very simplistic as for example France's head of state is called "President" but other than that they don't have much in common, the voting system is completely different, the extent of his powers is completely different, the way the candidates are selected is also different. All you have in common is a NAME.

I disagree.

The presidential system isn't called a system just because the heads of state happen to share the same title. In some parliamentary systems there are also presidents, but they still remain parliamentary systems.

The president in a presidential system isn't simply a figurehead, but wields actual executive power. And unlike the prime minister in a parliamentary system, he doesn't require a parliamentary majority in order to stay in office or exercise his constitutional duties. Which profoundly affects the relationship between the executive and the legislative branch of government and the way the separation of powers work, both of which are almost entirely different to the one found in a parliamentary system.

Granted, France currently has only a "semi-presidential" system as opposed to the full presidential system America maintains. But since the role and functions of the president in a semi-presidential system are still much closer to the one found in presidential system than the one in a parliamentary system, the point still stands.

And it remains a fact that the presidential system was first formulated in the U.S. Constitution and then "exported" from there. First to Latin America in the early 19th century, and then to other continents as well. One also has to keep in mind the United States was one of the first modern republics and for a long time one of the very few in existence in the world. So where did other countries start to look when their own monarchy was overtrown or they declared independence from their home country? The United States of course. (With most of the former British colonies being a notable exception here...)

As far as the mere title of president is concerned, even parliamentary systems which lack a monarch usually use the title for their figurehead head of states, even though the relationship between the executive and the legislative branch of government largely remains the same as in the British model.

 

[Elder Knight]

"Good evening, my fellow Federation citizens. The state of the Federation is strong. Everything is going well. The weather is warm and sunny. Everybody loves us and wants to join the Federation. Even our enemies, though they might not realize it yet. Starfleet are our protectors. Their mission is to explore the galaxy and meet new friends in the spirit of diplomacy. Also they have an arsenal big enough to blow all our enemies to hell. Have a nice day!"

"By the way, if you like your planet, you can keep it."

 

[kirkfan]

^That's very simplistic as for example France's head of state is called "President" but other than that they don't have much in common, the voting system is completely different, the extent of his powers is completely different, the way the candidates are selected is also different. All you have in common is a NAME.

I disagree.

The presidential system isn't called a system just because the heads of state happen to share the same title. In some parliamentary systems there are also presidents, but they still remain parliamentary systems.

The president in a presidential system isn't simply a figurehead, but wields actual executive power. And unlike the prime minister in a parliamentary system, he doesn't require a parliamentary majority in order to stay in office or exercise his constitutional duties. Which profoundly affects the relationship between the executive and the legislative branch of government and the way the separation of powers work, both of which are almost entirely different to the one found in a parliamentary system.

Granted, France currently has only a "semi-presidential" system as opposed to the full presidential system America maintains. But since the role and functions of the president in a semi-presidential system are still much closer to the one found in presidential system than the one in a parliamentary system, the point still stands.

And it remains a fact that the presidential system was first formulated in the U.S. Constitution and then "exported" from there. First to Latin America in the early 19th century, and then to other continents as well. One also has to keep in mind the United States was one of the first modern republics and for a long time one of the very few in existence in the world. So where did other countries start to look when their own monarchy was overtrown or they declared independence from their home country? The United States of course. (With most of the former British colonies being a notable exception here...)

As far as the mere title of president is concerned, even parliamentary systems which lack a monarch usually use the title for their figurehead head of states, even though the relationship between the executive and the legislative branch of government largely remains the same as in the British model.

During it's fifth republic which is the one currently in place and is nearly sixty years old, France has had already two cohabitations (that is a situation where the President and the first minister are on opposite sides of the political spectrum) and according to analyses by experts they worked quite well, better than sometimes when the President and the first minister were on the same side. The first minister is the one that selects the other ministers of the government so that means when the president presides the "conseil des minitres" he's likely to disagree with just about everything that is said by every other person in the room. That's something totally unimaginable in an American system.

 

[MacLeod]

^That's very simplistic as for example France's head of state is called "President" but other than that they don't have much in common, the voting system is completely different, the extent of his powers is completely different, the way the candidates are selected is also different. All you have in common is a NAME.

I disagree.

The presidential system isn't called a system just because the heads of state happen to share the same title. In some parliamentary systems there are also presidents, but they still remain parliamentary systems.

The president in a presidential system isn't simply a figurehead, but wields actual executive power. And unlike the prime minister in a parliamentary system, he doesn't require a parliamentary majority in order to stay in office or exercise his constitutional duties. Which profoundly affects the relationship between the executive and the legislative branch of government and the way the separation of powers work, both of which are almost entirely different to the one found in a parliamentary system.

Granted, France currently has only a "semi-presidential" system as opposed to the full presidential system America maintains. But since the role and functions of the president in a semi-presidential system are still much closer to the one found in presidential system than the one in a parliamentary system, the point still stands.

And it remains a fact that the presidential system was first formulated in the U.S. Constitution and then "exported" from there. First to Latin America in the early 19th century, and then to other continents as well. One also has to keep in mind the United States was one of the first modern republics and for a long time one of the very few in existence in the world. So where did other countries start to look when their own monarchy was overtrown or they declared independence from their home country? The United States of course. (With most of the former British colonies being a notable exception here...)

As far as the mere title of president is concerned, even parliamentary systems which lack a monarch usually use the title for their figurehead head of states, even though the relationship between the executive and the legislative branch of government largely remains the same as in the British model.

Nonsense a PM doesn't require a parlimentary majority to stay in power, there is such a thing as a minority Government, where the governing party of which the PM is a member simply holds the most number of seats. In the case of a minority Government they simply don't have enough the 50%+1 to pass legislation without help from other parties either by voting for an act or by abstaning.

And whilst the parliamentary system does have a looser seperation of power due to the fact that the executive is made up of members of the legislative it does tend to get things done. Take recent examples in the US, Due to the legislative being in Republician hands and the executive in Democratic hands it seems as if the US Congress is gridlocked unable to do anything, look at the recent DHS crisis to most of the rest of the world it seems obvious pass a clean funding bill, then move onto a bill which will sort out the issues that the GOP have with Obama's exective Order regarding where fudning sould be focused. And what about the what is is 56 votes to try and overturn the PPACA (aka Obamacare) that's just wasted time as even if does pass Obama will veto it and the GOP doesn't have a big enough majority to verturn a Presidential veto. They should be concentratinge on gaining the Presidentincy and keeping a majority Congress in 2016 at which point they will be able to get rid of it. Not to mention the GOP by causing a partial US Government shutdown last year risked tipping the global economy back into recession. But what do I know about politics.

 

[fonzob1]

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_Federation_of_Planets

President of the United Federation of Planets

edit this page

Discuss12 38,147pages on
this wiki

Seal of the President of the United Federation of Planets
The President of the United Federation of Planets (informally, the Federation President or the President of the Federation) was the elected head of state and head of government of the United Federation of Planets. (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home; Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country; DS9: "Homefront", "Paradise Lost")
The Federation President was the chief executive officer of the Federation. The President was responsible for the day-to-day operation of the government, setting and coordinating foreign policy, and dealing with resource distribution issues. (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country; DS9: "Homefront") The Federation President was also the commander-in-chief of all Starfleet forces. (DS9: "Paradise Lost") The President received foreign ambassadors and had the authority to control Starfleet deployments and to declare martial law on Federation Member worlds. (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country; DS9: "Homefront") In addition, the President could preside over special courts-martial in which the Federation Council served as the judging body. (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home)
The President was supported by the Cabinet, a special committee comprised of the heads of the executive departments of the Federation government. (DS9: "Extreme Measures")
The Federation President's office was located on Earth in the city of Paris, France. (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country; DS9: "Homefront", "Paradise Lost")
While in the mirror universe, after seeing that mirror Worf was the Regent of the Klingon-Cardassian Alliance, Rom was so taken aback he exclaimed "Who's the President of the Federation, Gul Dukat!?" (DS9: "The Emperor's New Cloak")
In the shooting script, Rom says: "So who's president of the Federation? Morn?" (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion - A Series Guide and Script Library)
Contents

[show]
Jonathan ArcherEdit

Jonathan Archer in 2161
Retired United Earth Starfleet Admiral Jonathan Archer served as President from 2184 through 2192. (ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II")

 

[kirkfan]

Archer was president? Wow, I shall start looking more attentively at those screens.

 

[T'Girl]

... was the elected head of state and head of government of the United Federation of Planets.

When was the president ever referred to by either of these terms?

... and to declare martial law on Federation Member worlds.

The president in Homefront declared a state of emergency, not martial law. And this was on the planet where the federation governing body was located, there no indication that he could do the same on any other Member planet.

In addition, the President could preside over special courts-martial in which the Federation Council served as the judging body.

This never has made sense, you'd think a actual president would have better things to do. Kirk's courts martial should have been conducted entirely by Starfleet.

 

[kirkfan]

... was the elected head of state and head of government of the United Federation of Planets.

When was the president ever referred to by either of these terms?

... and to declare martial law on Federation Member worlds.

The president in Homefront declared a state of emergency, not martial law. And this was on the planet where the federation governing body was located, there no indication that he could do the same on any other Member planet.

In addition, the President could preside over special courts-martial in which the Federation Council served as the judging body.

This never has made sense, you'd think a actual president would have better things to do. Kirk's courts martial should have been conducted entirely by Starfleet.

Actually, the President himself said that a state of emergency among other things included the application of martial law. There's no reason to think that he was either mistaken or lying.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Once a year, the Federation President's duties involve pardoning the Thanksgiving Tribble.

 

[T'Girl]

Actually, the President himself said that a state of emergency among other things included the application of martial law. There's no reason to think that he was either mistaken or lying.

That's not what the president said. And if Sisko had wanted "martial law," that would have been what he asked for.

 

[kirkfan]

Actually, the President himself said that a state of emergency among other things included the application of martial law. There's no reason to think that he was either mistaken or lying.

That's not what the president said. And if Sisko had wanted "martial law," that would have been what he asked for.

Let me refresh your memory:

LEYTON: Mister President, we can use the Lakota's transporters and communications system to mobilise every Starfleet officer on Earth in less than twelve hours. We've been preparing for something like this for a long time. We have stockpiles of phaser rifles, personal forcefields, photon grenades, enough to equip an entire army. I can start getting men on the streets immediately.
JARESH-INYO: What you're asking me to do is declare martial law.
LEYTON: What I'm asking you to do is let us defend this planet. We don't know what the changelings will do next, but we have to be ready for them. Ben, tell him.

And later:

JARESH-INYO: Earth is in your hands, gentlemen. Do what needs to be done.
LEYTON: Thank you, sir. You've made the right decision.
JARESH-INYO: I hope you're right, for all our sakes.

Looks like I am right... It was Martial Law.

 

[MacLeod]

I don't think so, Martial law is when the military takes over the government. A state of emergency is more along the lines of where the duely elected government is in charge but certain civil liberties might be curtailed or restricted for the duration of the period of emergency.

 

[kirkfan]

I don't think so, Martial law is when the military takes over the government. A state of emergency is more along the lines of where the duely elected government is in charge but certain civil liberties might be curtailed or restricted for the duration of the period of emergency.

So you're saying that the President of the federation doesn't know what he's talking about?

 

[Sci]

... was the elected head of state and head of government of the United Federation of Planets.

When was the president ever referred to by either of these terms?

Basic logic: The president of a sovereign state is by definition the head of state. The Federation is a sovereign state; there is a President of the United Federation of Planets; ergo, the President of the United Federation of Planets is the Federation's head of state.

The Federation President is also seen formulating and ordering policy in ST6. Heads of government are the leaders who formulate and order policy. Ergo, the Federation President is also the head of government.

... and to declare martial law on Federation Member worlds.

The president in Homefront declared a state of emergency, not martial law.

Fair enough.

And this was on the planet where the federation governing body was located, there no indication that he could do the same on any other Member planet.

There is no indication whatsoever that the Federation President was empowered to declare a State of Emergency on Earth only because it is the Federation capital. None. You are making that up.

In addition, the President could preside over special courts-martial in which the Federation Council served as the judging body.

This never has made sense, you'd think a actual president would have better things to do. Kirk's courts martial should have been conducted entirely by Starfleet.

Of course, the Federation encompasses more political traditions than just Earth's. Maybe Tellarites have a long tradition of the head of state presiding over courts-martial of prominent members of the military, and so the Federation inherited this tradition.

ETA:

I don't think so, Martial law is when the military takes over the government. A state of emergency is more along the lines of where the duely elected government is in charge but certain civil liberties might be curtailed or restricted for the duration of the period of emergency.

So you're saying that the President of the federation doesn't know what he's talking about?

It would be more accurate to say that Federation President Jaresh-Inyo was speaking in terms of the de facto effects of a State of Emergency rather than describing the actual legal situation. The actual legal situation is a State of Emergency in which Federation Starfleet forces are deployed in support of civil law and the civilian government; the effect, however, resembles martial law insofar as it means armed troops on the street corners of peaceful cities. It's not that he doesn't know what he's talking about -- it's that he's speaking to popular perception rather than legality.

 

[Kevman7987]

So, because the scene did not play out like this:

Sisko & Leyton: Mr. President. Declare martial law.
El Presidente: I am now declaring martial law.
El Presidente lights constitution on fire with antique, 20th century Bic lighter. He then lights cigars using constitution.

It's not a declaration of martial law?

 

[Sci]

So, because the scene did not play out like this:

Sisko & Leyton: Mr. President. Declare martial law.
El Presidente: I am now declaring martial law.
El Presidente lights constitution on fire with antique, 20th century Bic lighter. He then lights cigars using constitution.

It's not a declaration of martial law?

Legally-speaking, if it is not literally the imposition of the military over the civil government, then, no, it's not martial law.

This does not mean that declaring a State of Emergency cannot have the same devastating effect on civil rights and liberties as a declaration of martial law, mind you. If you declare a State of Emergency and put the Army on the street corner as backup to the Police, that's not martial law because you still have civil police rather than having it all be under the Army -- but who gives a crap if it's the Police arresting you for being a political dissident rather than the Army? You're still being denied your human rights.

That's why the term "martial law" is often used in common speech to refer to repressive States of Emergency, even if it is not legally accurate. The October Crisis in Canada is a good example. Legally-speaking, martial law was never invoked; the National Assembly of the Province of Quebec continued to function, the Premier of the Province of Quebec continued to govern, the Provincial Police bore primary responsibility for law enforcement, and Quebec and Canadian civil law remained in effect. But by order of the Prime Minister, the Canadian Army was put on the streets in a supporting role for the Provincial Police, tanks were sitting on the lawn of Parliament Hill in Ottawa, and hundreds of people were arrested and detained without charge or trial for supporting or being suspected of supporting Quebec independence. As a result, it is often referred to as martial law, even though it was legally not.

I suppose one could make the argument that the term "martial law" has by general use grown to encompass more than a specific legal convention -- that it is now a general term encompassing any morally illegitimate usurpation of civil rights and liberties by a repressive government acting during times of crisis. By that non-legal definition, sure, Jaresh-Inyo declared martial law. But legally, he declared a State of Emergency. This is a thread about specific legal duties and powers, so I think we should be specific in talking about the particular legalities of what was done.

 

[Timo]

In terms of dramatic conventions, when the President says "What you are asking me to do is declare martial law", it clearly means he's engaging in hyperbole. If the soldiers really were asking him to declare martial law, then the President would have no need to spell this out.

Of course, dramatic conventions and real-world dialogue rarely coincide. But dramatic conventions and dialogue in a TV show are one and the same thing, and the President here is making an accusatory exclamation, not a neutral factual statement. The soldiers fully understand this, and try to spin-doctor, back-pedal and otherwise soften the blow, so that their martial law does come about and the President doesn't order them all jailed for treason. The plot then continues as scheduled...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

he's engaging in hyperbole

Obviously.