The Two presidencies : a quarter century assessment
Also, as has been stated many times before, the term "Hollywood" does not refer to a geographical location, rather the "American motion picture industry", an industry which has come to be dominated by individuals and/or entities operating out of the Los Angeles city district called Hollywood and surrounding areas (including West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Century City, Burbank, Studio City, Brentwood, Culver City, Pacific Palisades, Santa Monica, etc). Thus, the question "Who controls Hollywood?" as expressed in this chapter and the associated book really means: "Who exercises the most significant influence over the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry today?"
A reassessment of the two presidencies thesis / Lee Sigelman --7
There have been two major developments in the nature of the political systems of America and Britain in the twentieth century. First, the structure of government has undergone fundamental change: administrative structures have developed to the extent that their impact upon the life of the ordinary citizen is more significant, and potentially more oppressive, than the actions of the traditional triad of governmental powers. The administration sits like a great cuckoo in the nest, elbowing out the historic actors in the drama of government. But this does not invalidate the analysis of the separation-of-powers theorist. It means that the analysis has to be brought up to date and applied to the new situation. The concern which always lay behind the doctrine of the separation of powers is still valid, namely, the concern to protect the individual against the overbearing power of government. Both models we have examined have failed to cope with the problem of the administrative state: in Britain the system of administrative government goes largely unchecked because of the pretence of ministerial responsibility; in the United States the separation of powers has allowed a greater degree of control over the administration, but “divided government” is a cause of deep concern to many political scientists, and it is asserted, the cause of public disquiet about the system of government.
This book serves to collect and furnish some of the available evidence which points toward the answers to two fundamental questions about the American motion picture industry: (1) Is the control exercised by the Hollywood control group reflected in the kinds and content of the motion pictures produced and released? and (2) Do American movies adequately reflect the nation's multi-cultural diversity or do they reflect a consistent pattern of bias in favor of those who control Hollywood and against those who do not control Hollywood? Because of the inherent difficulties in assembling an objective panel and reviewing enough movies that have been produced and released over a sufficient period of time to constitute an adequate sampling of negative and positive portrayals of various ethnic, religious, racial, gender, sexual preference and cultural groups in American motion pictures this report is based on a different approach and a less formal study of the above questions. Hopefully this effort will stimulate interest in this overall approach to the study of patterns of bias in motion picture content and lead to further studies using more formal methodologies.
The "Two Presidencies" Thesis and the Reagan Administration
Mably, then, retained the idea of equilibrium or balance in the constitution, but it was a different balance from that of Bolingbroke or Montesquieu, for Mably emphasized the balance between the legislative and executive branches rather than a balance of estates. How did he reconcile this with mixed government? To answer this question it is necessary to look at Mably’s earlier works, in which he discussed the ancient constitutions of Greece and Rome, as he interpreted them. He described these as mixed systems in which the different orders of society exercised separate and distinct functions of government, so that none could neglect their duties or abuse their power. With modifications this was just the view of the Constituents of 1789. Although there was no place for an aristocracy in the new constitution, the King was to remain but only on the basis of a strict separation of the functions of government. Mably’s theory is reminiscent of that of Philip Hunton; he attempted to accommodate the theory of mixed government to new conditions, and to emphasize the functional division between a hereditary monarch and an elected Assembly, although it is true that he also criticized the Constitution of Pennsylvania of 1776, because the executive was not chosen from among the legislature, a measure, he said, necessary to the attainment of harmony between the two branches.
The Two Presidencies: A Quarter Century Assessment ..
The Constitution of 1791 began with a sweeping abolition of all privileges, orders of nobility, and feudal or other social distinctions. It proclaimed the indivisible, inalienable sovereignty of the people, but hurriedly added that the nation could only exercise its powers by delegation through its representatives, the National Assembly, the King, and the elected judiciary. The unicameral Assembly was a permanent body, elected every two years, over which the King had no power of dissolution. The King could not initiate legislation, but he was given a suspensive veto. The idea of ministerial responsibility was rejected in favour of a process of impeachment before a National High Court. Members of the National Assembly were to be incapable of appointment to ministerial office, or of accepting any place or pension in the gift of the executive, during their membership of the Assembly and for two years afterwards. Thus the legislative and executive branches were strictly divided, although ministers were allowed to speak in the Assembly and to listen to the debates. The Constitution raised “the judicial power” to a level of equality with the legislature and the executive, the result, in Duguit’s view, of the American example rather than a response to political theories. The Assembly and the King were expressly forbidden to exercise any judicial function, and the judges were intended to be independent of the other two branches by virtue of their popular election. However, the strict separation of powers ruled out any possibility of judicial review of legislative acts like that which resulted from the theory of checks and balances in the United States. Indeed the Constituent Assembly inserted in the Constitution a specific denial of the right of judicial review; the courts were forbidden to interfere with the exercise of the legislative power or to suspend the execution of the laws. Nor were they to entertain actions against officials in respect of their administrative activities, so that the courts were prevented from exercising authority over executive or administrative, as well as legislative, actions. Thus the Assembly laid the basis for the vitally important distinction in French law between the judicial and the administrative jurisdictions. In the Constituent Assembly this was justified by the separation of powers theory, but its roots went back to the practice of the