Osee“BTW, Avangi, by CEOs, you actually mean the presidents, right? ”
Hi, Osee. I was thinking of the leaders of the big financial corporations, who made themselves rich by subverting the interests of the people they were supposed to "protect." Sometimes the title is "President and CEO (Chief Executive Officer)." In some organizations, they are separate people. Sometimes the chairman of the board of directors holds the power. I don't really know that much about the titles in different types of companies.
The same is true of countries. In some countries the "president" is the chief executive, while in other countries the "president" has no power, and the "prime minister" is the chief executive. When countries set up their constitutions, they determine who will have the power and what he will be called.
Osee “I believe a majority of Americans do not want to see Iraq war. Since the USA government claims the country is built on democracy, I do not understand why the majority's opinion failed to be obayed. ”
If you think about it, you may notice that simple majority rule can sometimes be dangerous. What we hope for instead is a truly
representative government. The voice of the people resides in a body of lawmakers, who (if we're lucky) are smart people of "good" character, who have the interests of the people they represent at heart. They think and fight and argue and negotiate over the issues, making laws which protect the rights and interests of as many people as possible.
In the state of California, we have a "crazy" law which allows any citizen to to make up a law. If he gets enough people to sign a petition supporting his law, then it's placed on the ballot in the next general election, and all of the citizens get to vote on it. If it passes, it becomes law. That's what I'd call simple majority rule. The Governor does not have veto power over such laws, nor can the legislature revoke them.
If somebody didn't like (let's say) red-headed people, he could write a law saying that all red-headed people will be put in jail, and their property will be auctioned off and the money divided up among all the citizens. It's theoretically possible that such a law could be supported and passed by a majority of the voters.
But then, thank God, some group like the ACLU would file a case in court, claiming that this law is "unconstitutional," or in conflict with other existing law. The court is then obliged to settle the issue on the basis of existing law. Their decision may then be appealed, etc. etc.
Presidents often appoint Attorneys General and Supreme Court Justices who agree with their flaky ideas, so the courts will support the president in a battle.
Re the war, the Congress has given the executive branch (the president) some extraordinary "discretionary" powers to act as he sees fit when he thinks national security is involved.
- A.