- Joined
- Apr 19, 2019
- Messages
- 615
- Reaction score
- 74
- Location
- Transient
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
That problem is because the checks and balances do not work
That problem is because the checks and balances do not workIt's not the Constitution that needs fixing, it's the influence of political parties (nowhere in the Constitution) imo.
Reorder it in what specific ways?
No way. The checks and balances is a theory for providing a just government for the people with the minimum amount of citizen oversight, because average citizens are unable to monitor the representatives, especially when they are removed from their constituent districts for their duties.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.
What kind of argument is this? That is obvious hyperbole, and I can guarantee that I am not sitting around doing nothing. You have never encountered a person suggesting that the checks and balances do not work. The people who can conceptualize such a problem are those who can conceptualize a solution.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.
What are you doing?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.
TSuch as?
Thanks.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
VU
Your welcome.
I disagree. Political parties (warned about by G Washington in his Farewell Address) put party above Constitution. The Constitution isn't the problem...people are.That problem is because the checks and balances do not work
Just because George Washington said something, that doesn't mean it is practical, and does not mean that it would work - eliminate parties, and what will happen??? I think you are just easily persuaded by legends about white men.I disagree. Political parties (warned about by G Washington in his Farewell Address) put party above Constitution. The Constitution isn't the problem...people are.
First, political parties add what to our system of government? Read the Farewell Address, everything he warned us about political parties has come to pass.Just because George Washington said something, that doesn't mean it is practical, and does not mean that it would work - eliminate parties, and what will happen??? I think you are just easily persuaded by legends about white men.
How do you eliminate coalescing in decision-making over the long term?
How do you eliminate political partisanship so the checks and balances work as intended?
You really need to work on your composition skills.
No way. The checks and balances is a theory for providing a just government for the people with the minimum amount of citizen oversight, because average citizens are unable to monitor the representatives, especially when they are removed from their constituent districts for their duties.
What kind of argument is this? That is obvious hyperbole, and I can guarantee that I am not sitting around doing nothing. You have never encountered a person suggesting that the checks and balances do not work. The people who can conceptualize such a problem are those who can conceptualize a solution.
What are you doing?
1. The DOJ is not part of the Constitutional check and balance system. It is part of the Executive Branch.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.
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.
Okay, . . .That is neither why the system of Checks & Balances was incorporated into the Constitution nor how it works.
Why don't you go read Morris' Committee Meeting Notes and the letters and diary entries of the men on that Committee and get back to us.
That does not make sense. The only way for any branch of the government to take total control would include eliminating the other branches - that would be impossible. That would be a revolution - an installation of a new form of government.The system of Checks & Balances is designed to keep any one Branch of Government from gaining total control of government.
Yes, I do understand that - it does not work. You are describing what happened to the check on disorderly states that could not agree on senate appointments.You probably don't understand that the federal government, the States and the People all form a system of Checks & Balances, too, although that has been eroded by allowing the direct election of Senators.
You are nowhere near what I am doing.A helluva lot more than you.
I did conceptualize the problem and provided a solution for it.
The problem is the ginormous amount of money involved and the sovereignty of States being routinely violated, which has led to an entrenched two-party system which is both destructive and counter-productive overall.
Your Constitution was designed to handle multiple political parties.
So what if the House of Representatives has members from 8 different political parties?
What in the Constitution would bar parties from forming a coalition to choose the Speaker of the House?
Absolutely nothing.
I am arguing that it is supposed to be separated. Every time someone calls for an independent investigation that is proof that it is not adequately separated from other influences.1. The DOJ is not part of the Constitutional check and balance system. It is part of the Executive Branch.
The checks and balances are supposed to prevent that - that means the checks and balances are inadequate. And that is because the separation is inadequate. If there is any flaw in the deployment of the separation theory, then the balance of power is skewed, and the checks on power are inaccurate.2. The reason the check and balance system is not working is because there are individuals within each of the three branches who are working in concert to sidestep any possible checks and balances. Those individuals are called "political Elites" and they are controlled by outside big money interests.
Nobody ever believes that they are voting for corrupt representatives. They always believe that they are voting for people who will "fight for them."3. The solution is entirely in the hands of the American People. It is up to them...and only them...to remove those individuals from government.
If the founders had the telephone system that we had a hundred years ago, then they would have made the federal senate a network of the state legislatures and the House a network of the municipal councils; and that would accommodate better local "politics."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.
The problem then returns to the state legislatures appointing senators and their inability re-emerges, because the states are unable to manage the diversity. You just don't see it, because the chaos was elevated to the federal level by the 17th Amendment. The problem is exacerbated by desegregation laws.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,
Exactly - The founders wanted that, but did not have all of the information, nor the technology to construct the government charters to be coordinated.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.
You probably have not found any forum that has anyone trying - I am the only one. It is going to require a complete reordering of the charter system.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.
That is the description of the "graduation of social issues."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.
Who says the DOJ is supposed to be separated? The President is responsible for enforcing laws and the DOJ is the executive branch agency that does the work. The DOJ cannot be separated from the executive branch.I am arguing that it is supposed to be separated. Every time someone calls for an independent investigation that is proof that it is not adequately separated from other influences.
Yes. That's what happens when the three branches of the government get taken over by like-minded people. The checks and balances break down. But, it's not the fault of the system. It's the fault of the people within the system.The checks and balances are supposed to prevent that - that means the checks and balances are inadequate. And that is because the separation is inadequate. If there is any flaw in the deployment of the separation theory, then the balance of power is skewed, and the checks on power are inaccurate.
True. And the people who have corrupted the government know this.Nobody ever believes that they are voting for corrupt representatives. They always believe that they are voting for people who will "fight for them."
I am.Who says the DOJ is supposed to be separated?
The problem is that no matter who is the president, or who is the attorney general - the attorney general is always accused of failing to investigate the president for wrong doing, because the president is his boss, and recommended him for the elite job.The President is responsible for enforcing laws and the DOJ is the executive branch agency that does the work.
Sure it can - you just do not have the ability to figure out how to do it. It just happens to be that I am smart enough. It is not that difficult to figure out how to do it. Every state has an attorney general. What's so difficult about their job that they cannot take time out once and a while and appoint a federal attorney general to run the federal department of justice???The DOJ cannot be separated from the executive branch.
No. The checks and balances are supposed to prevent that by appealing to the individual's sense of accomplishment in their particular branch and so, they do the checks on power to protect the sovereignty of their branch. It is a good theory, but it is dependent on the integrity of the separation of the branches. If there is any flaw in the separation, then the balance is skewed and the checks are compromised.Yes. That's what happens when the three branches of the government get taken over by like-minded people. The checks and balances break down. But, it's not the fault of the system. It's the fault of the people within the system.
LOL!!I am.
The problem is that no matter who is the president, or who is the attorney general - the attorney general is always accused of failing to investigate the president for wrong doing, because the president is his boss, and recommended him for the elite job.
Whenever anybody calls for "an independent investigation," that is proof that there is a lack of separation of the Department of Justice.
"Independent," is a simile to separation. Is it not?
Sure it can - you just do not have the ability to figure out how to do it. It just happens to be that I am smart enough. It is not that difficult to figure out how to do it. Every state has an attorney general.
No. The checks and balances are supposed to prevent that by appealing to the individual's sense of accomplishment in their particular branch and so, they do the checks on power to protect the sovereignty of their branch. It is a good theory, but it is dependent on the integrity of the separation of the branches. If there is any flaw in the separation, then the balance is skewed and the checks are compromised.
I figured out the problem, and I figured out the solution.
But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
You should provide a link and a quotation.First, political parties add what to our system of government? Read the Farewell Address, everything he warned us about political parties has come to pass.
Let Us Raise A Standard To Which The Wise And The Honest Can Repair; the event is in the hand of God. - George Washington, upon the early days of the convention when the delegates were frustrated by their lack of ability to design an expandable government.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- John Adams, Letter to the Massachusetts Militia; October 11, 1798
The dead should not rule the living.
― Thomas Jefferson, 1790
Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.
― Thomas Jefferson, 1803
I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
― Thomas Jefferson, 1816
I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig'd, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment, and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others. Most Men indeed as well as most Sects in Religion, think themselves in Possession of all Truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far Error.
__ Benjamin Franklin
"Easiest solution," does not mean it is correct. Why didn't the brilliant founders include term limits??? It had to cross their minds - they constructed differing term periods of election cycles.Easiest solution? Term limits (but easy is the wrong term because that would require a Constitutional Amendment.
That is neither why the system of Checks & Balances was incorporated into the Constitution nor how it works.
The "if men were angels" quote was meant to imply that not everyone has communal interests in mind and that certain government officials are inevitably going to push legislation that is in their own interests, rather than in the interests of their constituents. Madison emphasized that a system of checks and balances would prevent this from happening and he uses the quote to show that checks and balances are necessary because men are not necessarily all angels. This also ties back into the ideas of liberty and equal opportunity that Madison seems to be trying to emphasize through this Federalist paper.
Imo term limits were never discussed because the founders overestimated the American people. Modeling the Senate after the House of Lords, they believed that the Senate would be populated by benevolent old men that would make decisions in the best interest of the country. Modeling the House of Reps after the House of Commons, they thought people would leave their farms and markets, go serve for a few terms and return home.You should provide a link and a quotation.
You should be aware that the founders, including George Washington, did not revere their rendition of a three-part government to be indispensable.
"Easiest solution," does not mean it is correct. Why didn't the brilliant founders include term limits??? It had to cross their minds - they constructed differing term periods of election cycles.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?