The Checks and Balances do not Work

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

If the “checks and balances” worked, then we would not endure corruption and flawed policy, because that is what the “checks and balances” are supposed to prevent. If it is because, “they are not following the Constitution,” that means the checks and balances do not work, because the checks and balances are supposed to prevent that, as well. The checks and balances do not work, and it is probably because the three-part separation theory is improperly deployed. The three-part separation theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in its deployment, then the distribution of government powers is probably not balanced, and the checks on power are probably not in accordance with expectations. It is very unlikely that the checks and balances are going to work correctly if the separation of government is not properly constructed.

It should be obvious, by now, that the Department of Justice is not adequately separated from partisan alignment. It does not matter which party is in power, the attorney general is always accused of appeasing the president that nominated the office appointment. That is what happens in a lack of separation - the check on power is ignored and the possibilities are exploited.

Less obvious, because it has been for so long, is the judiciary is not separate from the other branches if it is dependent on the other branches to graduate its hierarchy of offices. And of course, the Federal Reserve is a legislative body that needs to be organized constituent to each state - state commerce commissioner.

The solution is we need to reorder the entire three-level charter system. Amendments will not work, because the separation of government entities is "hard-wired" to the articles of the charters.

 

[Glitch]

When you get 34 State legislatures to apply to Congress for a State Constitutional Convention to propose changes be sure you let us know. Until that happens there will not be any changes until the US collapses completely from within. Which should occur sometime within this century.

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

That does not have to happen. I am not proposing an amendment - I am proposing a complete reordering of the three-level charter system. I expect every state to get on board before the collapse of the erroneous subsisting system.


You couldn't believe that I wrote such a scathing critique of the checks and balances and three-part separation, and could not comprehend anything after that.

The solution is we need to reorder the entire three-level charter system. Amendments will not work, because the separation of government entities is "hard-wired" to the articles of the charters.

 

[Glitch]

That does not have to happen. I am not proposing an amendment - I am proposing a complete reordering of the three-level charter system. I exect every state to get on board before the collapse of the erroneous susbsisting system.

You are proposing an amendment, you just don't know it. Amendments can be used to completely rewrite the entire US Constitution. Just like the very first (and only) State Constitutional Convention abolished the Articles of Confederation, replacing a confederation with a federation.

Only through Article V of the US Constitution can you accomplish what you intend. Short of another insurrection (if you lose) or revolution (if you win).

 

[RealityNow]

People should have paid attention to Civics Classes.... We could have been making the changes Biden is making 100+ yrs ago.

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

You are proposing an amendment, you just don't know it. Amendments can be used to completely rewrite the entire US Constitution. Just like the very first (and only) State Constitutional Convention abolished the Articles of Confederation, replacing a confederation with a federation.

Only through Article V of the US Constitution can you accomplish what you intend. Short of another insurrection (if you lose) or revolution (if you win).

Whatever makes you feel better

 

[Glitch]

You couldn't believe that I wrote such a scathing critique of the checks and balances and three-part separation, and could not comprehend anything after that.

The solution is we need to reorder the entire three-level charter system. Amendments will not work, because the separation of government entities is "hard-wired" to the articles of the charters.

I think you are so desperate for immediate change that you are incapable of seeing the only lawful solution presented. It was the first State Constitutional Convention that gave us the US Constitution, and another State Constitutional Convention can abolish the US Constitution by completely rewriting it.

Regardless what they come up with, it would still require the approval of three-fourths of the State legislatures, just like the original US Constitution did. Unless you intend to implement your changes through force.

 

[cpwill]

If the “checks and balances” worked, then we would not endure corruption and flawed policy, because that is what the “checks and balances” are supposed to prevent.

Checks and Balances are not intended to prevent either corruption or poor policy, though they can limit those things, and limit somewhat their spread. Checks and Balances are intended to prevent tyranny.

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

Checks and Balances are not intended to prevent either corruption or poor policy, though they can limit those things, and limit somewhat their spread. Checks and Balances are intended to prevent tyranny.

Tyranny is a corruption of a republic, and if the checks and balances were not to prevent poor policy, then the Supreme Court would not have the power to declare laws, "unconstitutional."

 

[AGENT J]

If the “checks and balances” worked, then we would not endure corruption and flawed policy, because that is what the “checks and balances” are supposed to prevent. If it is because, “they are not following the Constitution,” that means the checks and balances do not work, because the checks and balances are supposed to prevent that, as well. The checks and balances do not work, and it is probably because the three-part separation theory is improperly deployed. The three-part separation theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in its deployment, then the distribution of government powers is probably not balanced, and the checks on power are probably not in accordance with expectations. It is very unlikely that the checks and balances are going to work correctly if the separation of government is not properly constructed.

It should be obvious, by now, that the Department of Justice is not adequately separated from partisan alignment. It does not matter which party is in power, the attorney general is always accused of appeasing the president that nominated the office appointment. That is what happens in a lack of separation - the check on power is ignored and the possibilities are exploited.

Less obvious, because it has been for so long, is the judiciary is not separate from the other branches if it is dependent on the other branches to graduate its hierarchy of offices. And of course, the Federal Reserve is a legislative body that needs to be organized constituent to each state - state commerce commissioner.

The solution is we need to reorder the entire three-level charter system. Amendments will not work, because the separation of government entities is "hard-wired" to the articles of the charters.

I dont think theres any possible way to have checks and balances to have no corruption and no flawed policies (which is subjective)

checks and balances are there for POWER balance and in hopes to state a constitutional republic and not end up a dictatorship, theocracy etc . . the checks and balances are to prevent tyranny . . .

Now with that said . . well . . we saw with Trump the checks and balances didn't perform as well as we would like against Tyranny but that can be fixed, improved and it will happen hopefully.


What I would like to see done for better balance and I'm not sure how to do it is, I'm my opinion congress should be able to decide on things that are solely for themselves . . like their salary and healthcare . . we have a very weak check and balance there and that needs to be improved.

 

[cpwill]

Tyranny is a corruption of a republic, and if the checks and balances were not to prevent poor policy, then the Supreme Court would not have the power to declare laws, "unconstitutional."

I believe you will find that is also incorrect - SCOTUS does not have the power to overturn a Statute because they think it's poor policy, but only if come to the confusion that it violates the higher law of the Constitution.

Scalia used to have a stamp on his desk that read "Stupid, But Constitutional". I've always enjoyed that.

So are you in college?

 

[Integrityrespec]

I think you are so desperate for immediate change that you are incapable of seeing the only lawful solution presented. It was the first State Constitutional Convention that gave us the US Constitution, and another State Constitutional Convention can abolish the US Constitution by completely rewriting it.

Regardless what they come up with, it would still require the approval of three-fourths of the State legislatures, just like the original US Constitution did. Unless you intend to implement your changes through force.

Those on the left side of the democrat party don't care about process. They don't care about about following the Constitution. What they want is their way, now, without delay and regardless of whether it is legally done or not.

 

[Individual]

If you want checks and balances, first repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, requiring State governments to acquire their proportionate share of revenue to fund the operation of the Federal government and returning the Senate as representatives of the State governments and the House as representatives of the various people within each individual State.
Eliminate most all Federal redistribution programs, making them a responsibility of individual State/local governments.
Require the Federal budget to be balanced, with any surplus applied to debt reduction, and any deficits to be eliminated in the following years budget.

 

[Mircea]

If the “checks and balances” worked, then we would not endure corruption and flawed policy, because that is what the “checks and balances” are supposed to prevent.

That is not what the system of Checks & Balances is supposed to prevent.

The burden for preventing "corruption and flawed policy" falls upon the voters.

If there is corruption, it is because you have allowed money to rule the day.

People and entities like corporations, unions, think-tanks, PACs and such in a State 100s or 1,000s of miles away from your State are dumping money into your State to influence gubernatorial races, congressional races, races in your State legislature and in your cities and counties.

And what do you do?

The sovereignty of your State is being violated and you sit in a corner with one thumb in your mouth and the other thumb up your full point of contact.

Do you start frothing at the mouth and attempt to coerce your government into creating a constitutional amendment that would permit only eligible voters to donate money to candidates or ballot issues, and even then to only those candidates or ballot issues in your jurisdiction?

You know, you're running for mayor so the only political donations you are allowed to accept are from eligible voters who are domiciled as residents in your city.

So, if they don't live within the city limits, and they aren't a living breathing human being who is at least 18 years old and otherwise eligible to vote, you can't take their money. That means you can't take money from corporations, other businesses, unions, think-tanks, PACs or any other non-living thing.

If you happen to be running for governor, you could only take donations from eligible voters who are domiciled as residents in your State. Yeah, you want so very badly to take money from people and organizations in other States, but you can't do it.

Are you screaming for that? Nope. You just sit there and take it.

That's too bad, too, because if you got rid of the money, you'd have a wider variety of candidates from a wider variety of political parties and then this "flawed policy" thing (that you are apparently reluctant to define) would be far less flawed.

 

[Individual]

That is not what the system of Checks & Balances is supposed to prevent.

The burden for preventing "corruption and flawed policy" falls upon the voters.

If there is corruption, it is because you have allowed money to rule the day.

People and entities like corporations, unions, think-tanks, PACs and such in a State 100s or 1,000s of miles away from your State are dumping money into your State to influence gubernatorial races, congressional races, races in your State legislature and in your cities and counties.

And what do you do?

The sovereignty of your State is being violated and you sit in a corner with one thumb in your mouth and the other thumb up your full point of contact.

Do you start frothing at the mouth and attempt to coerce your government into creating a constitutional amendment that would permit only eligible voters to donate money to candidates or ballot issues, and even then to only those candidates or ballot issues in your jurisdiction?

You know, you're running for mayor so the only political donations you are allowed to accept are from eligible voters who are domiciled as residents in your city.

So, if they don't live within the city limits, and they aren't a living breathing human being who is at least 18 years old and otherwise eligible to vote, you can't take their money. That means you can't take money from corporations, other businesses, unions, think-tanks, PACs or any other non-living thing.

If you happen to be running for governor, you could only take donations from eligible voters who are domiciled as residents in your State. Yeah, you want so very badly to take money from people and organizations in other States, but you can't do it.

Are you screaming for that? Nope. You just sit there and take it.

That's too bad, too, because if you got rid of the money, you'd have a wider variety of candidates from a wider variety of political parties and then this "flawed policy" thing (that you are apparently reluctant to define) would be far less flawed.

That's something I've brought up in the past, but always gets ignored by any who have responded.
Tip O'Neill was wrong, but SHOULD have been right, "All politics should remain local." We've allowed our government to become so centralized that the people have little/no representation at all. Basically voters are only given the option to select a candidate based on a small number of many issues which the parties have brought to the front based on the size of various voting blocs, racial issues seeming to dominate politics today.
I totally agree that donations, and campaign ads for/against individual candidates should, by Federal law, be permitted to persons who are residents of the area a candidate would represent if elected.

I still maintain that repeal of both the 16th and 17th amendments is the ONLY way we might begin to bring the Federal government to have greater control by the people and the States, diminishing the power of the wealthiest, corporate lobbyists, and most of all political parties and their national platforms being applied to party candidates. Sometimes I think it would be most interesting to have polls taken in each State to determine what their citizens see as the most pressing issues, and the solution to such issues should be made a responsibility of State and/or local government, NOT Federal government.

I've yet to find a political forum where more than a few persons make any attempt to find workable solutions to problems within or form of government.

Sovereignty, IMHO, begins with each individual, and THAT is what I was taught to be the meaning of the word "equal" in our Declaration of Independence, and our Constitutional Republic being formed as a Nation of Laws, NOT Men. Local governments are, or should be the closest thing to a democracy with each level above being less a democracy though using a democratic process which may/may not always represent the will of a majority Nationally, leaving States and/or the people application of the 10th amendment.

 

[Sagittarius83]

If the “checks and balances” worked, then we would not endure corruption and flawed policy, because that is what the “checks and balances” are supposed to prevent. If it is because, “they are not following the Constitution,” that means the checks and balances do not work, because the checks and balances are supposed to prevent that, as well. The checks and balances do not work, and it is probably because the three-part separation theory is improperly deployed. The three-part separation theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in its deployment, then the distribution of government powers is probably not balanced, and the checks on power are probably not in accordance with expectations. It is very unlikely that the checks and balances are going to work correctly if the separation of government is not properly constructed.

It should be obvious, by now, that the Department of Justice is not adequately separated from partisan alignment. It does not matter which party is in power, the attorney general is always accused of appeasing the president that nominated the office appointment. That is what happens in a lack of separation - the check on power is ignored and the possibilities are exploited.

Less obvious, because it has been for so long, is the judiciary is not separate from the other branches if it is dependent on the other branches to graduate its hierarchy of offices. And of course, the Federal Reserve is a legislative body that needs to be organized constituent to each state - state commerce commissioner.

The solution is we need to reorder the entire three-level charter system. Amendments will not work, because the separation of government entities is "hard-wired" to the articles of the charters.

Reorder it in what specific ways?

 

[Sagittarius83]

That's something I've brought up in the past, but always gets ignored by any who have responded.
Tip O'Neill was wrong, but SHOULD have been right, "All politics should remain local." We've allowed our government to become so centralized that the people have little/no representation at all. Basically voters are only given the option to select a candidate based on a small number of many issues which the parties have brought to the front based on the size of various voting blocs, racial issues seeming to dominate politics today.
I totally agree that donations, and campaign ads for/against individual candidates should, by Federal law, be permitted to persons who are residents of the area a candidate would represent if elected.

I still maintain that repeal of both the 16th and 17th amendments is the ONLY way we might begin to bring the Federal government to have greater control by the people and the States, diminishing the power of the wealthiest, corporate lobbyists, and most of all political parties and their national platforms being applied to party candidates. Sometimes I think it would be most interesting to have polls taken in each State to determine what their citizens see as the most pressing issues, and the solution to such issues should be made a responsibility of State and/or local government, NOT Federal government.

I've yet to find a political forum where more than a few persons make any attempt to find workable solutions to problems within or form of government.

Sovereignty, IMHO, begins with each individual, and THAT is what I was taught to be the meaning of the word "equal" in our Declaration of Independence, and our Constitutional Republic being formed as a Nation of Laws, NOT Men. Local governments are, or should be the closest thing to a democracy with each level above being less a democracy though using a democratic process which may/may not always represent the will of a majority Nationally, leaving States and/or the people application of the 10th amendment.

Some people are not happy that local governments in various places are doing things that offend them so they are turning increasingly to the federal government to strip local authority.
Nothing new. Some people think things that they shouldn’t be thinking and doing things they shouldn’t be doing because ethics is static and we all know what the final ethical system should be??? Something like that anyway.

 

[Felis Leo]

Reorder it in what specific ways?

Fuhrerprinzip perhaps? That seems to be what these complaints all boil down to and always seem to lead to.

Some version of this:

"Checks and balances via separation of powers through co-equal branches of government, or parliamentary democracies, or bicameral legislatures is so archaic, slow-moving and unresponsive to the needs of the people! What if we had a single vanguard party that represented the true interests of the people led by a courageous genius who could cut through the Gordian knot of factionalism and inter-party strife to lead us all into the sunlit uplands of a grand future?"

Sounds tempting, does it not? Whenever anyone starts telling me that the concept of checks-and-balances (the very cornerstone of the rule of law) does not work and encourages me however subtly that we must do away with it, the fascist-sensing hairs on the back of my neck begin to rise.

 

[Sagittarius83]

Fuhrerprinzip perhaps? That seems to be what these complaints all boil down to and always seem to lead to.

Some version of this:

"Checks and balances via separation of powers through co-equal branches of government, or parliamentary democracies, or bicameral legislatures is so archaic, slow-moving and unresponsive to the needs of the people! What if we had a single vanguard party that represented the true interests of the people led by a courageous genius who could cut through the Gordian knot of factionalism and inter-party strife to lead us all into the sunlit uplands of a grand future?"

Sounds tempting, does it not? Whenever anyone starts telling me that checks and balances (the very cornerstone of the rule of law) does not work and encourages me however subtly that we must do away with it, the fascist-sensing hairs on the back of my neck begin to rise.

Seems like the US decides to deal with it’s thorny constitutional issues by interpreting it’s constitutional mandates as inappropriate to today’s “more enlightened” values.

For example cruel and unusual punishment now means any form of capital punishment when originally it was referring to things like drawing and quartering.

On the present course, it may come to mean preventing men who identify as women from playing women’s sports including showering in the women’s locker room. Don’t you dare stop me from playing women’s sports even though I am a man because that is cruel and unusual punishment.

Think I am exaggerating? One of the anti federalists opposed the proposed US Constitution saying that it raised the risk of a federal income tax and he was laughed out of the room at the constitutional convention.

Yes, it is time for the US to have a constitutional convention but why bother when it’s present constitution can so easily be ignored with end runs with sentiments like it is a living document.

That meant it could be changed by amendment. But Trevor Noah said it best for radicals. “That is too hard”

It seems the US constitution has to now be interpreted within the boundaries of the present standards of capricious ethics.

An objective standard is fascist it seems.

 

[Individual]

Some people are not happy that local governments in various places are doing things that offend them so they are turning increasingly to the federal government to strip local authority.
Nothing new. Some people think things that they shouldn’t be thinking and doing things they shouldn’t be doing because ethics is static and we all know what the final ethical system should be??? Something like that anyway.

As long as local governments are not violating our Federal or their State Constitutions, local governments who are democratically elected by a majority of eligible voters, those members who disagree with the majority have no grounds for asking the Federal government to intervene. Essentially they are left with the option to remain or leave. That is how people exercise their freedom and liberty within peaceful societies.
Local governments who are NOT violating the Constitutions or laws set forth by State or Federal government should/can be stripped of their authority by a majority of voters who elect them to office. Local level governments are where democracy (majority rule) prevails and the minority have little/no say. If the Democracy where you live is not suitable, move to one which is by exercising the Freedom and Liberty our founders intended when they created our Republican form of Federal and State government.

 

[Sagittarius83]

As long as local governments are not violating our Federal or their State Constitutions, local governments who are democratically elected by a majority of eligible voters, those members who disagree with the majority have no grounds for asking the Federal government to intervene. Essentially they are left with the option to remain or leave. That is how people exercise their freedom and liberty within peaceful societies.
Local governments who are NOT violating the Constitutions or laws set forth by State or Federal government should/can be stripped of their authority by a majority of voters who elect them to office. Local level governments are where democracy (majority rule) prevails and the minority have little/no say. If the Democracy where you live is not suitable, move to one which is by exercising the Freedom and Liberty our founders intended when they created our Republican form of Federal and State government.

What happens in situations where there are strongly held views that prohibit whatever and are supported locally but opposed by groups outside that local administration but are not specifically addressed in the US constitution?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Tyranny is a corruption of a republic, and if the checks and balances were not to prevent poor policy, then the Supreme Court would not have the power to declare laws, "unconstitutional."

the truth is the court does not have such authority. The court unilaterally declared themselves to have it and the congress and executive refuse to ignore them. It was the most efficient coup d’etat in history

 

[Individual]

What happens in situations where there are strongly held views that prohibit whatever and are supported locally but opposed by groups outside that local administration but are not specifically addressed in the US constitution?

Such as?

 

[mrjurrs]

If the “checks and balances” worked, then we would not endure corruption and flawed policy, because that is what the “checks and balances” are supposed to prevent. If it is because, “they are not following the Constitution,” that means the checks and balances do not work, because the checks and balances are supposed to prevent that, as well. The checks and balances do not work, and it is probably because the three-part separation theory is improperly deployed. The three-part separation theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in its deployment, then the distribution of government powers is probably not balanced, and the checks on power are probably not in accordance with expectations. It is very unlikely that the checks and balances are going to work correctly if the separation of government is not properly constructed.

It should be obvious, by now, that the Department of Justice is not adequately separated from partisan alignment. It does not matter which party is in power, the attorney general is always accused of appeasing the president that nominated the office appointment. That is what happens in a lack of separation - the check on power is ignored and the possibilities are exploited.

Less obvious, because it has been for so long, is the judiciary is not separate from the other branches if it is dependent on the other branches to graduate its hierarchy of offices. And of course, the Federal Reserve is a legislative body that needs to be organized constituent to each state - state commerce commissioner.

The solution is we need to reorder the entire three-level charter system. Amendments will not work, because the separation of government entities is "hard-wired" to the articles of the charters.

It's not the Constitution that needs fixing, it's the influence of political parties (nowhere in the Constitution) imo.

 

[Prof_Lunaphiles]

Fuhrerprinzip perhaps? That seems to be what these complaints all boil down to and always seem to lead to.

Some version of this:

"Checks and balances via separation of powers through co-equal branches of government, or parliamentary democracies, or bicameral legislatures is so archaic, slow-moving and unresponsive to the needs of the people! What if we had a single vanguard party that represented the true interests of the people led by a courageous genius who could cut through the Gordian knot of factionalism and inter-party strife to lead us all into the sunlit uplands of a grand future?"

Sounds tempting, does it not? Whenever anyone starts telling me that the concept of checks-and-balances (the very cornerstone of the rule of law) does not work and encourages me however subtly that we must do away with it, the fascist-sensing hairs on the back of my neck begin to rise.

I am the only person you have ever encountered who claims that the checks and balances do not work. My solution is for the better division of government.

Reordering the United States Government Chartering System

Let Us Raise A Standard To Which The Wise And The Honest Can Repair; the event is in the hand of God. — George Washington With all due respect to the honorable reverence for the noble founding of the United States, it has become necessary to understand the relevance of the preceding anecdote...

debatepolitics.com