Constitutional Tinkering

[sebbysteiny]

I would ask why term limits are actually necessary? They work for the presidency because if you have a position that has too much power, you could easily find yourself in an elected dictatorship, which may soon become an unelected dictatorship.

 

Britain has no such limit and it works very well because the PM has too many counterbalancing forces curtailing his power.

 

And if you changed the congressmen every term, you might get complete paralysis. Imagine it. Every debate that was nearing a consensus would have to be re opened again right from the beginning. The first few years will be spent trying to get back into the position of the last senate.

 

Also, if somebody is doing a good job, it seems logical that he should stay.

First, since nobody can be elected for consecutive terms, the Congress will stay in session longer as NONE of the members need to go home and campaign for themselves.

 

Firstly, I can't see the time saved in not campaigning counterbalancing the time lost in starting the entire lawmaking body again from scratch.

 

Secondly, even according to your own ideas, this is not true since

2) A person may in consecutive terms move from one office to another, only if moving from one legislative body to another (Representative to Senate, Senate to President)

so they will spend the same time campaigning for their place in the other house. Infact, they will probably need more time because the electorate will not know them as well.

 

I don't know why you need 3) because the existing president and the party nominations are sufficient checks and balances to make sure that the right man comes to power, let alone that little thing called a general election.

 

And doesn't 4 give many states a power disproportionate to their population? Surely the number of seats should be proportional to the population and if that's 1, so be it? Would you still stick to your formula if 10,000 inhabbitants of Alaska would get the same voting power of 1,000,000 Calafornians?

 

Still, your idea was bold and I like bold ideas, so QP.

[sebbysteiny]

I like the idea of allowing the president unlimited but not back to back turns for the persidancy rather than the two years and your out at the moment.

 

Do you need the rest of your ammendments to make that happen? Surely you could scrap the stuff about changing every congressman before every election without losing that.

 

But wouldn't your idea of 1 year president, 1 year out leave open the possibility a puppet presentant during the intermediary year? Surely that would defeat the point of the safeguard in the first place?

[TheBigDog]

But wouldn't your idea of 1 year president, 1 year out leave open the possibility a puppet presentant during the intermediary year? Surely that would defeat the point of the safeguard in the first place?

What I was trying to get with that clause about the VP is preventing someone in office from spending their time running for another office. I was actually thinking of adding similar language for Representatives and Senators. So a sitting Representative who wanted a Senate seat would need to vacate his office in the House six months prior to the Senate election. I made it a year for the VP because I want the VP busy working for me, not running for his next office.

 

If anyone in any office drops out of that office to pursue another they would be replaced in the same fashion as happens today - depending upon the laws of their state. Or in the case of the VP, picked by the President and approved by the Senate. (I think, too lazy to look up)

 

Bill

[sebbysteiny]

Oh I think I see.

 

You believe in the principal that an elected officer must spend his time working as that entirely as an officer without spending any of that time electioneering.

 

You believe that that principal has not been incorporated into the constitution as it currently stands and you want to make changes to incorporate that principal into the constitution as best as it possibly can. Technically, this principal is probably part of the more general principal of effective governance.

 

The principal itself is sound. The question is, how well do the changes you have proposed frustrate the action of other principals that have rightfully also been included in the document.

 

The other principals that might be affected by your changes are the ability to have a consistant reliable government and principal of having sufficient safeguards.

 

I'm very unconviced that efficiency from your proposal 1 will gain more than it loses by having to start all pending legislation again from scratch.

 

Perhaps you might want to consider giving senators a 3 consecutive period beyond which they can serve again after another term. That way, only 25% of the house (+ those that lost their seats) leaves so that the other 75% can continue where they left off updating the new 25% of their progress. It would also give the 75% a chance to make contingency plans reducing inconvenience even further. That way, 1/4 of the wasted time 'electioneering' would be saved without much lost in compensation. Further, you could make it a constitutional requirement somehow that most of the electioneering for the 75% is done by the 25% who's term is expiring (with the exception of independants). This could cut electioneering losses by perhaps 30-40% without too much loss which is better than nothing.

 

The Vice President could also have a set number of hours spent working such that any electioneering would have to be minimized or done by those less senior wherever possible.

 

However, I still think that allowing a man as powerful as the president to serve more than 2 terms is too dangerous for want of safeguards.

[Little Bang]

Another version of the same thing I've been thinking about for twenty years, you have my vote but given the current level of american thinking we have very little chance of getting it implimented.

 

As you can see from some responses, there are those who will always find an excuse why we should not use common sense in the constitution. I for one would like congress to have leave Washington ever four years and make a living under the Bills they pass.

[C1ay]

One thing that I would like to see added to the system, but probably not via the Constitution, is a punitive accountability. If some politician wants to get up there and claim as a fact, "I'm going to create a million jobs" then he/she needs to do exactly that or be held accountable for the falsehood they used to get elected. I'm tired of the flash paper promises that fly at election time....

[sebbysteiny]

C1ay, that's a good idea.

 

But some leeway has to be given. What happens if, say, a crash in the economy of China prevents the congressman in US from achieving his claims? And what happens if he narrowly misses? It seems harsh to put impossible standards on people. What do you think?

[TheBigDog]

One thing that I would like to see added to the system, but probably not via the Constitution, is a punitive accountability. If some politician wants to get up there and claim as a fact, "I'm going to create a million jobs" then he/she needs to do exactly that or be held accountable for the falsehood they used to get elected. I'm tired of the flash paper promises that fly at election time....

This is actually where the idea I had started. I wanted to find a way of holding the congress acocuntable to a level of performance. The idea being that if they, for instance, didn't pass a balanced budget, none in the ocngress would be eligable for reelection. But this type of punative action actually seemed to in the end cause more harm than good. A minority party could stone wall forcing a majority that was attempting to fulfill its obligation to forfeight the right for reelection. So I carried it a step further, making the possibility of reelection off the table for everyone.

 

I really thought hard about how to enact measures for keeping people to a level of performance. The best I could come up with is to make them work more.

 

Why is the congress out of session right now? Under my system they would be. Because not a single congressman would have just been voted out. We would be in a transitional period where those just elected would be working with the existing members. And the existing members would still be doing business right to the day that the new memebers take over on Jan 3rd.

 

Bill

[pgrmdave]

I'd like to see the government be held to the same accounting standards as they set for publicly held businesses.

[sebbysteiny]

What about this one.

 

I would like to see a system whereby the government has much more power and less democratic accountability so that they have the power to make tough decisions on, say, global warming and replenishing fish stocks.

 

The problems here are even when the long term benefits are so patently obvious, the short term interest lobbies are able to substantially destroy any attempt to solve the problem.

 

India too needs to make economic reforms that all know will stimulate the ecomomy, but the poor are blocking progress as they will suffer in the little bit after the reforms but before the ecomomy has successfully adjusted.

 

And in America, some lobby groups, especially business lobbies may be too powerful.

 

So what can be done to prevent special interest groups from blocking tough but correct long term decisions?

[C1ay]

But some leeway has to be given. What happens if, say, a crash in the economy of China prevents the congressman in US from achieving his claims? And what happens if he narrowly misses? It seems harsh to put impossible standards on people. What do you think?

That's what trials are for. If he/she can show that a miss was beyond his/her control then the pnishment is minimall if the people can show it was just an empty promise to begin with then let him/her pay dearly for doing so.

[CraigD]

I gather from post #1 and several following posts, that TBD’s proposed reforms to the US Constitution are intended to remedy 2 primary problems:

• Unfair election advantage to incumbents
  
• Reduced effectiveness of elected officials resulting from them spending a large fraction of their labor on re-election and other political efforts, rather than the duties of their office.
  

For many reasons, including those posted in this tread, I’m skeptical that even the profound change to the US Constitution proposed can combat these problems in a way that would not be easily and quickly circumvented. Rather, I’ve a radical proposal of a different kind, which I think goes more directly toward the problems:

 

Prohibit, by public law, office holders on all levels of government from engaging in political campaigning.

 

The immediate objection to such a law, other than the practical difficulty of enacting or enforcing it, is that it violates the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. However, there is already strong and uncontroversial precedent for abridging this and other Constitutionally guaranteed liberties of individuals: the conviction by due process of law of individuals of crimes. Note that the Fifth Amendment guaranty of life, liberty, and property states only that these things cannot be taken from an individual without due process, not that that process must be involuntary, as is the case in criminal and civil prosecution. I can see no Constitutional barrier to the voluntary surrender of the liberties exercised in political campaigning as a condition of holding public office.

 

The most serious objection I’m able to imagine is that such law would be ineffective, as office holders could merely rename their political activity “public communication of policy”, and carry on with politics as usual. The only way I can see to prevent this circumvention is for the law, and possibly the US and various state constitutions, to impose statutory restrictions on the quantity of communication with the public that various government offices could conduct.

[Freddy]

For the first time since 1976 I voted against Ted Kennedy, who has been a Senator since 1962 in a special 2 year term election. If he completes this term he will have served 50 years in the Senate. One reason why I voted against Ted was his stance on illegal immigration, as he was the champion of the 1986 Amnesty that granted 20 million illegals citizenship. Opponents said this would just send the message to more foreigners to come to America illegally. They were correct. Another reason is it is time for someone else to come in with new ideas. My political philosophy is close to Ted's on many issues, but a younger Democrat might bring something new and vibrant to the office. At least Teddy will head up an important committee. Not too many unenrolled in MA had the same idea as I because Teddy still received 69% of the vote.

 

"You were always a power hungry specimen, you were raised with rank and mind," by Burton Cummings always made me think of the rich and powerful. At least Teddy has tried to help the less fortunate among us, while the middle class pays the bills.