1 2 > 
 
   
 

Something to learn from

 
Balfizar1
 
Avatar
 
 
Balfizar1
Total Posts:  25
Joined  11-07-2019
 
 
 
06 November 2019 04:06
 

Given the current turmoil in US politics, what modifications are necessary to the constitution and WH administration to stop this happening again:-

1.  All conversations taped and under the control of and reviewed by a fourth co-equal and independent branch of government.
2.  Subpoena power with some force and consequences behind it.
3.  No more “jobs for the boys” political donor appointments. (career people only)
4.  Negation of gerrymandering and voter suppression.
5.  Elimination of the electoral college.
6.  Bills sent to the senate must be processed within a reasonable time (Max Limit)

It would take a fourth co-equal and independent branch of government to keep the other 3 branches from sabotaging the ethical conduct of governing.

can you add to the list?

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”  ? H.L. Mencken

“Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” —Thomas Jefferson

“The cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation of an educated electorate.” —Thomas Jefferson

“Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.
—HL Mencken (1880 - 1956)

When an independent body sets the rules and holds “everyone” accountable, then and only then can we have progress:- but where will we find and how will we maintain this independent body?

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3367
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
07 November 2019 10:33
 

Shorter political campaigns so the country can rest between battles and put an end to this perpetual fighting business. 

A reversal of Citizens United.

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2868
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
07 November 2019 11:06
 

Ranked Choice voting for all State and Federal Office positions.

 
 
Balfizar1
 
Avatar
 
 
Balfizar1
Total Posts:  25
Joined  11-07-2019
 
 
 
07 November 2019 17:15
 

I almost forgot:-

1 (a)  compulsory voting for all (18 - 70 y.o.).  Now won’t that change the political landscape.  No more having to gin-up the base, they are voting whether you like it or not and it may well change the (fearful rhetoric) just a bit.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7708
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
07 November 2019 17:19
 

some sort of term limits (to add to the already good list)

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21811
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
07 November 2019 17:44
 

The Supreme Court needs to clarify the limits of executive power and enforce Congressional subpoena power, in the appropriate case brought before them.

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3855
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
07 November 2019 23:32
 
Balfizar1 - 06 November 2019 04:06 AM

Given the current turmoil in US politics, what modifications are necessary to the constitution and WH administration to stop this happening again:-

1.  All conversations taped and under the control of and reviewed by a fourth co-equal and independent branch of government.
2.  Subpoena power with some force and consequences behind it.
3.  No more “jobs for the boys” political donor appointments. (career people only)
4.  Negation of gerrymandering and voter suppression.
5.  Elimination of the electoral college.
6.  Bills sent to the senate must be processed within a reasonable time (Max Limit)

1. Would require an amendment to the constitution.
2. Already exists.
3. Would require an amendment to the constitution.
4. Determination of voting districts is a power of the states, not the federal government.  Voter suppression is already illegal.
5. Would require an amendment to the constitution.
6. Senate rules are constitutionally the responsibility of the Senate.

1 (a)  compulsory voting for all (18 - 70 y.o.).  Now won’t that change the political landscape.  No more having to gin-up the base, they are voting whether you like it or not and it may well change the (fearful rhetoric) just a bit.

Would require an amendment to the constitution.

LadyJane - 07 November 2019 10:33 AM

A reversal of Citizens United.

Citizens United has already been decided by the Supreme Court.  A change would require campaign finance reform legislation to be passed and signed into law.

Twissel - 07 November 2019 11:06 AM

Ranked Choice voting for all State and Federal Office positions.

Electoral procedures are the rights of the states.

icehorse - 07 November 2019 05:19 PM

some sort of term limits (to add to the already good list)

Term limits fall under states rights.

 
 
Balfizar1
 
Avatar
 
 
Balfizar1
Total Posts:  25
Joined  11-07-2019
 
 
 
08 November 2019 00:56
 
bbearren - 07 November 2019 11:32 PM
Balfizar1 - 06 November 2019 04:06 AM

Given the current turmoil in US politics, what modifications are necessary to the constitution and WH administration to stop this happening again:-

1.  All conversations taped and under the control of and reviewed by a fourth co-equal and independent branch of government.
2.  Subpoena power with some force and consequences behind it.
3.  No more “jobs for the boys” political donor appointments. (career people only)
4.  Negation of gerrymandering and voter suppression.
5.  Elimination of the electoral college.
6.  Bills sent to the senate must be processed within a reasonable time (Max Limit)

1. Would require an amendment to the constitution.

*** Yes and it is necessary to stop the farce that is the current situation.

2. Already exists.
*** what is current is ineffectual and takes too long to implement.

3. Would require an amendment to the constitution.

*** Yes, and what a fiasco it is to have a hotel owner in such an important position, just because he was a donor,  how does that serve the people?

4. Determination of voting districts is a power of the states, not the federal government.  Voter suppression is already illegal.

Yes,  another ineffectual law,  and poorly implemented, necessitating a few watchdogs to try and keep them honest.

5. Would require an amendment to the constitution.

Shore would and not before time, equality of weight of a vote, not just a vote is a fundamental right.


6. Senate rules are constitutionally the responsibility of the Senate.

Yes, and the whole process of law making to the benefit of the people can be negated by the senate majority leader, the grim reaper.(moscow mitch)

1 (a)  compulsory voting for all (18 - 70 y.o.).  Now won’t that change the political landscape.  No more having to gin-up the base, they are voting whether you like it or not and it may well change the (fearful rhetoric) just a bit.

Would require an amendment to the constitution.

Its a citizens duty, even if mandate in the majority of the rest of the democratic world, time to catch-up.

LadyJane - 07 November 2019 10:33 AM

A reversal of Citizens United.

Citizens United has already been decided by the Supreme Court.  A change would require campaign finance reform legislation to be passed and signed into law.

Twissel - 07 November 2019 11:06 AM

Ranked Choice voting for all State and Federal Office positions.

Electoral procedures are the rights of the states.

icehorse - 07 November 2019 05:19 PM

some sort of term limits (to add to the already good list)

Term limits fall under states rights.

*** I think you have missed the point,  nothing will change unless there is change!!!!!!!!.  All the loopholes and failures of the constitution and law will be exploited by the next Trump. (remember the Nixon tapes? how effective were they?)  when you can’t rely on the oath of office in the WH, or the administration to serve the people, then you need a record.

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

H.L. Mencken   (1880 - 1956)

 

[ Edited: 08 November 2019 01:08 by Balfizar1]
 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3855
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 November 2019 08:10
 
Balfizar1 - 08 November 2019 12:56 AM

*** I think you have missed the point,  nothing will change unless there is change!!!!!!!!.

I think perhaps it is you who have missed the point.  We have a constitution and states rights to address each of your proposals.  The methods for change are already in place, and any changes must use those methods as prescribed by the constitution and by the states.

There is no workaround.  The Equal Rights Amendment is in the state ratification stage.  It was first introduced in Congress in December 1923.  After being reintroduced by U.S. Representative Martha Griffiths in 1971, it was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on October 12, 1971 and by the U.S. Senate on March 22, 1972, thus submitting the ERA to the state legislatures for ratification, as provided for in Article V of the U.S. Constitution.  It has missed two deadlines for ratification by the necessary 38 states, and would have to require extensive resuscitation in order to be brought back to life and finally become a constitutional amendment.

Wishful thinking doesn’t get us anywhere with your list.  There are necessary processes already in place which must be followed, as spelled out in the constitution.  Perhaps you should read it to refresh your understanding of our democratic republic.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6419
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
08 November 2019 09:51
 
bbearren - 08 November 2019 08:10 AM

Wishful thinking doesn’t get us anywhere with your list.

Since the manner of change was unspecified, it could include your quibbles. You bring your own nits to the nitpicking. Without wishful thinking, the US Constitution would never have been created.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21811
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
08 November 2019 10:46
 

Amend the Constitution to require additional qualifications from a candidate for President.

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3855
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 November 2019 10:48
 
Nhoj Morley - 08 November 2019 09:51 AM
bbearren - 08 November 2019 08:10 AM

Wishful thinking doesn’t get us anywhere with your list.

Since the manner of change was unspecified, it could include your quibbles. You bring your own nits to the nitpicking. Without wishful thinking, the US Constitution would never have been created.

And since the US Constitution has, indeed, been created, and since its creation amended a number of times, I am merely pointing out that the manner of change has, indeed, been specified.  The manner of change is extant in the US Constitution and in the powers of the States.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  555
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
08 November 2019 14:17
 
icehorse - 07 November 2019 05:19 PM

some sort of term limits (to add to the already good list)

I’m opposed to term limits.

1) If a politician can only serve X terms, they are now incentivized to alter the laws to favor ex-politicians.  Ie, politicians will have a higher incentive to place looser restrictions on lobbyists, since their next job will be lobbying.

2) Government is hard work.  Crafting good legislation that has few unintentional loopholes, or legislation that will actually achieve it’s purpose with few unintended consequences is difficult.  If all politicians are new to the job because of term limits, that means legislators will be beholden to outside groups to craft legislation for them.

3) Government is hard work.  For a completely different reason this time.  One of the biggest roles politicians have is operating as oversight for technical bureaucrats.  If politicians don’t understand how an agency operates, they cannot provide effective oversight to that agency.

4) It takes power away from voters.  If they like their politician, who are we, people from the past, to decide that those people in the future can’t choose who they want?

5) Legislative bodies become more unstable.  If you think congress has gotten too partisan, or that certain things are changing too fast, then term limits would only make those factors worse.  If you want to see things change, then term limits might help in the short run, but congress could be made up of those who oppose those changes after the next election, and with term limits that would be more likely to have these large swings.  Increased partisanship and reduced stability would be a consequence of term limits.

I think term limits for an extremely high and singular position, such as President is a good idea.  Typically, the president is already going to be an experienced politician (current occupant notwithstanding).  They should already be experts at their job, and so the short time frame to accomplish their task is okay.

I would be in favor of judicial term limits, but they would fairly long ones.  18 years instead of a life time appointment.

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3855
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 November 2019 16:56
 
Garret - 08 November 2019 02:17 PM
icehorse - 07 November 2019 05:19 PM

some sort of term limits (to add to the already good list)

I’m opposed to term limits.

Fifteen states are not opposed to term limits, and have term limits for state legislators.  They are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.

[ Edited: 08 November 2019 17:03 by bbearren]
 
 
Balfizar1
 
Avatar
 
 
Balfizar1
Total Posts:  25
Joined  11-07-2019
 
 
 
08 November 2019 20:06
 
bbearren - 08 November 2019 08:10 AM
Balfizar1 - 08 November 2019 12:56 AM

*** I think you have missed the point,  nothing will change unless there is change!!!!!!!!.

I think perhaps it is you who have missed the point.  We have a constitution and states rights to address each of your proposals.  The methods for change are already in place, and any changes must use those methods as prescribed by the constitution and by the states.

There is no workaround.  The Equal Rights Amendment is in the state ratification stage.  It was first introduced in Congress in December 1923.  After being reintroduced by U.S. Representative Martha Griffiths in 1971, it was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on October 12, 1971 and by the U.S. Senate on March 22, 1972, thus submitting the ERA to the state legislatures for ratification, as provided for in Article V of the U.S. Constitution.  It has missed two deadlines for ratification by the necessary 38 states, and would have to require extensive resuscitation in order to be brought back to life and finally become a constitutional amendment.

Wishful thinking doesn’t get us anywhere with your list.  There are necessary processes already in place which must be followed, as spelled out in the constitution.  Perhaps you should read it to refresh your understanding of our democratic republic.

I never said “How” I said “What”

Balfizar1 - 06 November 2019 04:06 AM
Given the current turmoil in US politics, “”  what “”  modifications are necessary to the constitution and WH administration to stop this happening again:-

Most posters seem to have absorbed the “What” and answered accordingly.  With some succinct inclusions I might add.

Perhaps you would like to try again with the “”  what “”  modifications are necessary to the constitution and WH administration.

 

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3855
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 November 2019 20:47
 
Balfizar1 - 08 November 2019 08:06 PM

I never said “How” I said “What”

Balfizar1 - 06 November 2019 04:06 AM
Given the current turmoil in US politics, “”  what “”  modifications are necessary to the constitution and WH administration to stop this happening again:-

Most posters seem to have absorbed the “What” and answered accordingly.  With some succinct inclusions I might add.

Perhaps you would like to try again with the “”  what “”  modifications are necessary to the constitution and WH administration.

What do you propose to get around the “how”?  I ask because the only “how” involves the office holders we now have at state and federal level.  Any “what” must traverse that channel; there is no other.

“Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

 
 
 1 2 >