A notable example is the approach to soft drugs in the Netherlands. Despite being illegal, the public prosecutor has chosen not to enforce the law. To the point that many if not most think they’re legal.

This situation presents a complex issue to me: it involves a small group of individuals (the prosecutor’s office) effectively deciding to disregard the broader democratic process and the will of the voters. When such things happen, I believe they should be rare, pragmatic and temporary.

What’s your view on the matter?

  • Norah (pup/it/she)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    It’s always confused me how USians refer to different congressional periods as happening “under” certain presidents as if they have any actual part to play in the legislative process itself. I live in a country where the head of government is the Prime Minister, whose equivalent would be the House Majority Leader, and actually has a lot to say about the legislative agenda.

    • DecaturNature@yall.theatl.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      The President in the USA can veto laws. In a Constitutional sense, this gives them more power than any other single legislator. They are also the leader of their party, which can make them just as influential as the Speaker of the House (House Majority leader) when their party has the majority. The public also pays more attention to the President than the Speaker. For these reasons, and because Presidents have defined terms, it’s convenient shorthand to describe a period of time.

        • DecaturNature@yall.theatl.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          True. I see that Parliament also has a Speaker of the House with a similar role to the US Speaker of the House. I was confused why you equated the Prime Minister with the House Majority Leader, rather than the Speaker of the House. It sounds like in the UK, when a party gets a majority in Commons, their leader usually becomes PM, while in the US, their leader becomes Speaker.

          • Norah (pup/it/she)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Yeah, I guess in the US the Speaker usually wields their power in a very partisan manner, whereas in parliamentary systems they are usually supposed to act as bipartisan as possible.