How are government officials investigated in Parlimentary systems?

[dsc]

I was in an undergraduate level Constitutional Law class when the decision upholding the independent council law was decided. It was an 7 to 1 decision with Scalia in dissent. (Morrison vs Olsen) Scalia and my professor, to their credit, predicted the sort of Inspecter Javert like shenanagins that Ken Starr would later engage in after being appointed by a three judge panel. I, and the seven member majority, to our discredit, underestimated the depths to which conservatives would go to destroy Clinton. By 2000 everyone agreed that an offical Inspecter Javert was a really bad idea.

That leads us to now. Clearly this Republican Congress is utterly unwilling to investigate this Republican President. Sadly, in 2004, the electorate showed it really didn't care. Maybe 2006 will prove me an unnecessary pessimist in this regard, but I really am wondering if the Framers got it right on this. Unless the people throw one of the Houses of Congress out and puts our party in, Bush will never be investigated by anyone, for anything, while in office. In short, with both branches of Congress under the same party's control we are becoming a defacto Parlimentary system.

That leads me to the question above. If and when we get power back, is their a solution that avoids the second coming of Javert but also avoids an administration getting away with virtually anything as long as it also controls Congress?

[KingFlorez]

1. Ombudsman

Some countries have an Ombudsman who is part of the government, but does independent investigations.

[dsc]

2. Some of our departments have them

but they aren't very powerful or well funded. That kind of system could work, I guess.