• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Changes I Would Like to See

Stealers Wheel

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
10,696
Reaction score
10,757
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
First, I want the senate to be required to give any presidential nominee an up or down vote within 60 days of the nomination unless the president or the nominee withdraws the name. This idea that the senate majority can make federal court or other federal posts go unfulfilled for purely partisan reasons is BS. If the nominee fails to get an up or down vote within the 60 days, they ought to take the position without the advice and consent of the senate.

Second, I want to rein in the presidential power to discard ratified treaties on a whim. Some treaties take years, even decades to work out, involving many man hours of hard work by career diplomatic staff. A ratified treaty has been considered and approved by the senate. For one man to basically wipe out all that effort with a stroke of a pen is an outrage. If the president wants to do this, he ought to have to go to the senate and convince a majority that a given treaty should be done away with.

I want to see the presidential power to move congressional-approved budget items around at will brought to a halt. As it is, all congress can do is throw a bucket of money at the president to do with it what he will. Trump is building the wall with money that was allocated for the military. WTF is that about? So our troops go without so he can fulfill a political campaign promise? If he wants to move money, he should at least get the OK from the House committee that recommended the funds in the first place. That would require the president to convince someone at least that his request has some validity.

One last one. Any position that requires confirmation by the senate can only be designated as "acting" for thirty days. After that, they must be formally nominated or removed from the position.

Just a short wish list.
 
First, I want the senate to be required to give any presidential nominee an up or down vote within 60 days of the nomination unless the president or the nominee withdraws the name. This idea that the senate majority can make federal court or other federal posts go unfulfilled for purely partisan reasons is BS. If the nominee fails to get an up or down vote within the 60 days, they ought to take the position without the advice and consent of the senate.

Second, I want to rein in the presidential power to discard ratified treaties on a whim. Some treaties take years, even decades to work out, involving many man hours of hard work by career diplomatic staff. A ratified treaty has been considered and approved by the senate. For one man to basically wipe out all that effort with a stroke of a pen is an outrage. If the president wants to do this, he ought to have to go to the senate and convince a majority that a given treaty should be done away with.

I want to see the presidential power to move congressional-approved budget items around at will brought to a halt. As it is, all congress can do is throw a bucket of money at the president to do with it what he will. Trump is building the wall with money that was allocated for the military. WTF is that about? So our troops go without so he can fulfill a political campaign promise? If he wants to move money, he should at least get the OK from the House committee that recommended the funds in the first place. That would require the president to convince someone at least that his request has some validity.

One last one. Any position that requires confirmation by the senate can only be designated as "acting" for thirty days. After that, they must be formally nominated or removed from the position.

Just a short wish list.

You aren't going to see any of those things and they exist for a reason. The same way Trump moves money around, Obama moved money around, Bush moved money around, Clinton moved money around.
 
You aren't going to see any of those things and they exist for a reason. The same way Trump moves money around, Obama moved money around, Bush moved money around, Clinton moved money around.

Prove it. I think you just made that up.
 
First, I want the senate to be required to give any presidential nominee an up or down vote within 60 days of the nomination unless the president or the nominee withdraws the name. This idea that the senate majority can make federal court or other federal posts go unfulfilled for purely partisan reasons is BS. If the nominee fails to get an up or down vote within the 60 days, they ought to take the position without the advice and consent of the senate.

Second, I want to rein in the presidential power to discard ratified treaties on a whim. Some treaties take years, even decades to work out, involving many man hours of hard work by career diplomatic staff. A ratified treaty has been considered and approved by the senate. For one man to basically wipe out all that effort with a stroke of a pen is an outrage. If the president wants to do this, he ought to have to go to the senate and convince a majority that a given treaty should be done away with.

I want to see the presidential power to move congressional-approved budget items around at will brought to a halt. As it is, all congress can do is throw a bucket of money at the president to do with it what he will. Trump is building the wall with money that was allocated for the military. WTF is that about? So our troops go without so he can fulfill a political campaign promise? If he wants to move money, he should at least get the OK from the House committee that recommended the funds in the first place. That would require the president to convince someone at least that his request has some validity.

One last one. Any position that requires confirmation by the senate can only be designated as "acting" for thirty days. After that, they must be formally nominated or removed from the position.

Just a short wish list.

I agree with the first one, except it should be 30 days.

The second, a president can't ignore a ratified treaty.

The third, get ready to change The Constitution.
 
First, I want the senate to be required to give any presidential nominee an up or down vote within 60 days of the nomination unless the president or the nominee withdraws the name. This idea that the senate majority can make federal court or other federal posts go unfulfilled for purely partisan reasons is BS. If the nominee fails to get an up or down vote within the 60 days, they ought to take the position without the advice and consent of the senate.

Second, I want to rein in the presidential power to discard ratified treaties on a whim. Some treaties take years, even decades to work out, involving many man hours of hard work by career diplomatic staff. A ratified treaty has been considered and approved by the senate. For one man to basically wipe out all that effort with a stroke of a pen is an outrage. If the president wants to do this, he ought to have to go to the senate and convince a majority that a given treaty should be done away with.

I want to see the presidential power to move congressional-approved budget items around at will brought to a halt. As it is, all congress can do is throw a bucket of money at the president to do with it what he will. Trump is building the wall with money that was allocated for the military. WTF is that about? So our troops go without so he can fulfill a political campaign promise? If he wants to move money, he should at least get the OK from the House committee that recommended the funds in the first place. That would require the president to convince someone at least that his request has some validity.

One last one. Any position that requires confirmation by the senate can only be designated as "acting" for thirty days. After that, they must be formally nominated or removed from the position.

Just a short wish list.

I don’t think a president can break a ratified treaty. We have to let the scotus answer for sure.
 
Last edited:
We need the Legislature to claw back the Rights it has in the Constitution. IMO NO SINGLE CONGRESS has the right to abdicate Legislative responsibilities to the Administrative branch and institutionalize that mutation in Law. That is in fact how we got here. Years and years and years of gutless Congressmen and Senators willing to throw their Legislative responsibilities over the wall to the President secure in the knowledge that THE PEOPLE would never elect an outright crook, a sociopathic monster to the WH.....and then came Fat Donald. WHOOPS!!!.

We will need the SJC to stop avoiding the obvious as well. They have simply sat aside and allowed Bills to be signed into Law that contain patently UNCONSTITUTIONAL language. The Court has such a bad reputation for refusing to act that cases challenging the nonsensical language of Bills that grant Presidents all sorts of Rights and Privileges that are the constitutional domain of the Legislature are no longer brought. Everybody knows the Court will simply refuse to hear them. So nobody brings them.

The result was inevitable. A President simply ignoring the Constitution and doing whatever he pleases while the Courts turtle along at their usual pace till they finally tell the President to go crap in his hat. Nobody may have noticed but the Court is using Trump as a punching bag now as all the suits against him finally get to Court Judgements. While the Administration has lost cases in the Courts at the most alarming rate in history throughout Trump's term in office, now the Court is just clubbing Donnie Boy at every turn. President Joe Palooka with his nose shoved off to his cauliflower ear and two black eyes.....a fitting end to the worst Presidency in history. But Donald was not the cause. Donald was just the result.

Any American citizen should have standing before the Court to strike down the IDIOT language that grants Legislative responsibility to the Administration branch. The Court should hear the case and tell the Congress to go back and do better!!!!!
 
First, I want the senate to be required to give any presidential nominee an up or down vote within 60 days of the nomination unless the president or the nominee withdraws the name. This idea that the senate majority can make federal court or other federal posts go unfulfilled for purely partisan reasons is BS. If the nominee fails to get an up or down vote within the 60 days, they ought to take the position without the advice and consent of the senate.
I think this will have the opposite effect to what you want. If there is a default result (nominee gets position) when the senate fails to vote, and the majority wants that result, you've just given them a way to guarantee their choice of nominee without any input from the minority. That's just more incentive to deny a vote for purely partisan reasons. An alternative is that after the 60 days the minority gets to unilaterally accept or reject the nominee. This guarantees that the majority leader will always have an incentive to call an official vote before the deadline.
 
I think this will have the opposite effect to what you want. If there is a default result (nominee gets position) when the senate fails to vote, and the majority wants that result, you've just given them a way to guarantee their choice of nominee without any input from the minority. That's just more incentive to deny a vote for purely partisan reasons. An alternative is that after the 60 days the minority gets to unilaterally accept or reject the nominee. This guarantees that the majority leader will always have an incentive to call an official vote before the deadline.

Good point.
 
Back
Top Bottom