Reform the Presidency Thread

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,108
Reaction score
422
Points
83
In other words, return to the constitutional separation of powers. That would appear to be the only reform we need: not changing the rules but resolving to live by them. That would have to include a comprehensive review of the constitutionality of a variety of things, not the least of which is the War Powers Act, which I've always felt is an unconstitutional deferral of power from legislative to executive.
We have separation of powers. Just because you don’t like the decision congress made on impeachment doesn’t mean that power doesn’t exist.
but yes, we should look at the constitutionality of many many things. War Powers is a good one. 14th amendment should be invalidated. Lots of things to change.
 

Dean S

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,080
Reaction score
227
Points
63
We have separation of powers. Just because you don’t like the decision congress made on impeachment doesn’t mean that power doesn’t exist.
but yes, we should look at the constitutionality of many many things. War Powers is a good one. 14th amendment should be invalidated. Lots of things to change.
What would you propose for substitute language?
 

Dean S

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,080
Reaction score
227
Points
63
Read up on changing the Constitution. It is NOT going to happen without very, very wide all party support. Think that will happen in America today? Not a chance, save your breath.
FYI, as a political scientist, I know what it takes to change the Constitution. Nonetheless, it is worth exploring.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,247
Reaction score
254
Points
83
FYI, as a political scientist, I know what it takes to change the Constitution. Nonetheless, it is worth exploring.
You're a Poli Sci? Holy shit, that explains a lot. I was on Poli Sci for several years before seeing it was a dead end, and Poli Sci profs are about the worst lot there is.
 

Veritas

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
1,360
Reaction score
343
Points
83
FYI, as a political scientist, I know what it takes to change the Constitution. Nonetheless, it is worth exploring.
I too have a BA in Political Science as well as Economics and another in History. So, go ahead and see if you can pass an Amendment to the US Constitution today. Unless it is something silly and useless such as the ERA. Anything that changes anything real has no chance.
 

Dean S

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,080
Reaction score
227
Points
63
I too have a BA in Political Science as well as Economics and another in History. So, go ahead and see if you can pass an Amendment to the US Constitution today. Unless it is something silly and useless such as the ERA. Anything that changes anything real has no chance.
Do you get up in the morning and chant, "I can't do that. I can't do that" as part of your routine morning meditation!
 

Veritas

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
1,360
Reaction score
343
Points
83
Do you get up in the morning and chant, "I can't do that. I can't do that" as part of your routine morning meditation!
I naturally wake up realistic almost every morning except when the Gophers are playing. Then I get like you, a dreamer. But really, just stick to the facts, the Constitution must be ammended by 3/4 of the states or by the political establishment and that is not going to happen in either case regarding any of the points you raised.
 

Dean S

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,080
Reaction score
227
Points
63
I naturally wake up realistic almost every morning except when the Gophers are playing. Then I get like you, a dreamer. But really, just stick to the facts, the Constitution must be ammended by 3/4 of the states or by the political establishment and that is not going to happen in either case regarding any of the points you raised.
And, you start by saying you wake up realistically, which is a euphemism for your lack of motivation to actuate change. Not my problem. I usually lay guys like you outside of my sphere of doers, as we don't hang with people with such bad chakras. In March, I will go to my caucus and begin the snail pace change process.
 

Veritas

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
1,360
Reaction score
343
Points
83
And, you start by saying you wake up realistically, which is a euphemism for your lack of motivation to actuate change. Not my problem. I usually lay guys like you outside of my sphere of doers, as we don't hang with people with such bad chakras. In March, I will go to my caucus and begin the snail pace change process.
Oh, just shut up. You have turned a simple political comment into a huge need for you to vent about me. There is term the children of today use when they want someone who is an annoying drip to stop being an idiot. Something about going away or off.
 

Dean S

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,080
Reaction score
227
Points
63
Oh, just shut up. You have turned a simple political comment into a huge need for you to vent about me. There is term the children of today use when they want someone who is an annoying drip to stop being an idiot. Something about going away or off.
I see you can rage on angrily over a few internet virtual pokes in the ribs. You didn't simply have a political comment. You were bent on raging about this as I called you out on your "do nothing" position. But, really, what you want is everybody to do nothing about the Constitution. You like it as it stands, flawed and dangerous. Trump has shown us all how dangerous a "do nothing" position takes us.
 

Dean S

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,080
Reaction score
227
Points
63
You're a Poli Sci? Holy shit, that explains a lot. I was on Poli Sci for several years before seeing it was a dead end, and Poli Sci profs are about the worst lot there is.
100% agree.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,247
Reaction score
254
Points
83
100% agree.
Although I will say that I thoroughly enjoyed "Comparative Governments of Western Europe" before changing majors. Pretty cool class, seeing how some of the 3-4 larger countries ran their governments
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,418
Reaction score
281
Points
83
What's funny is that the President and his followers purport to be non-interventionists, but they could EASILY get a law passed now that severely restricted the right of the President to engage in military action and they won't do so.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
8,555
Reaction score
400
Points
83
Changes -
Personally, I could live with dumping the Electoral College. But, the smaller states will fight that tooth and nail.

I would like to see a different approach to campaigns - designate a certain number of weeks before the election, and all campaigning would be restricted to that period. And TV ads would be restricted to a smaller window of time. if it was up to me, I would get rid of all PAC's, dark money, and big-money donations. Cap all donations at $100 per candidate from any source. and have a spending cap for campaigns.

Also - no caucuses. have a series of 4 or 6 regional primaries, held once a week.

Make voting as easy and simple as possible. If I can file my taxes online, I should be able to vote online.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
20,571
Reaction score
268
Points
83
Changes -
Personally, I could live with dumping the Electoral College. But, the smaller states will fight that tooth and nail.
Would you allow the smaller states to secede? None of them would have joined the union without the EC. Doesn't seem fair to promise them an EC to get them to join, then change it on them without allowing them the opportunity to secede. Essentially, we'd be turning them into subjects of New York, California & Illinois, which is similar to why the original colonies fought for indepence from England.
 

Omega015

Active member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
1,348
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Would you allow the smaller states to secede? None of them would have joined the union without the EC. Doesn't seem fair to promise them an EC to get them to join, then change it on them without allowing them the opportunity to secede. Essentially, we'd be turning them into subjects of New York, California & Illinois, which is similar to why the original colonies fought for indepence from England.
We also needed the three-fifths compromise to secure the union, so I don't agree with your premise.

You also seem ok with the inverse, which makes New York, California, and Illinois the subjects of Wyoming and New Hampshire.

As it is right now, no candidate needs to try to win the votes of the vast majority of both large and small states due to the electoral college. Candidates only focus on a specific set of (mostly) white voters in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, because those states represent the tipping point

With a straight popular vote, candidates would need to secure the votes of a much larger and more diverse set of people, since 1 person = 1 vote. Under the current system there is 1 vote in WY per 192,579 people and 1 vote in CA per 719,272 people. That is an insane imbalance in representation at the federal level.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,612
Reaction score
1,101
Points
113
We also needed the three-fifths compromise to secure the union, so I don't agree with your premise.

You also seem ok with the inverse, which makes New York, California, and Illinois the subjects of Wyoming and New Hampshire.

As it is right now, no candidate needs to try to win the votes of the vast majority of both large and small states due to the electoral college. Candidates only focus on a specific set of (mostly) white voters in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, because those states represent the tipping point

With a straight popular vote, candidates would need to secure the votes of a much larger and more diverse set of people, since 1 person = 1 vote. Under the current system there is 1 vote in WY per 192,579 people and 1 vote in CA per 719,272 people. That is an insane imbalance in representation at the federal level.
Californians are free to move to Wyoming if they want to be more proportionally represented. They might anyway to escape the paradise that the left is turning into garbage. Thus the beauty of states. If you live in an area that is governed by donkeys you are free to move and still be in the USA- the greatest nation on earth!

Let us all know when California starts complying with federal immigration laws and we can discuss again how they can be more fairly treated...
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,150
Reaction score
1,139
Points
113
We also needed the three-fifths compromise to secure the union, so I don't agree with your premise.

You also seem ok with the inverse, which makes New York, California, and Illinois the subjects of Wyoming and New Hampshire.

As it is right now, no candidate needs to try to win the votes of the vast majority of both large and small states due to the electoral college. Candidates only focus on a specific set of (mostly) white voters in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, because those states represent the tipping point

With a straight popular vote, candidates would need to secure the votes of a much larger and more diverse set of people, since 1 person = 1 vote. Under the current system there is 1 vote in WY per 192,579 people and 1 vote in CA per 719,272 people. That is an insane imbalance in representation at the federal level.
Time to grant DC and Puerto Rico statehood. (And 4 Senators!). I wonder if the GOP will object?
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,247
Reaction score
254
Points
83
We also needed the three-fifths compromise to secure the union, so I don't agree with your premise.

You also seem ok with the inverse, which makes New York, California, and Illinois the subjects of Wyoming and New Hampshire.

As it is right now, no candidate needs to try to win the votes of the vast majority of both large and small states due to the electoral college. Candidates only focus on a specific set of (mostly) white voters in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, because those states represent the tipping point

With a straight popular vote, candidates would need to secure the votes of a much larger and more diverse set of people, since 1 person = 1 vote. Under the current system there is 1 vote in WY per 192,579 people and 1 vote in CA per 719,272 people. That is an insane imbalance in representation at the federal level.
Losers have hated the rules and wanted to change the rules after losing for as long as anyone can remember.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
20,571
Reaction score
268
Points
83
We also needed the three-fifths compromise to secure the union, so I don't agree with your premise.

You also seem ok with the inverse, which makes New York, California, and Illinois the subjects of Wyoming and New Hampshire.

As it is right now, no candidate needs to try to win the votes of the vast majority of both large and small states due to the electoral college. Candidates only focus on a specific set of (mostly) white voters in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, because those states represent the tipping point

With a straight popular vote, candidates would need to secure the votes of a much larger and more diverse set of people, since 1 person = 1 vote. Under the current system there is 1 vote in WY per 192,579 people and 1 vote in CA per 719,272 people. That is an insane imbalance in representation at the federal level.
The difference is the country was founded under the EC system. New York, California & Illinois agreed to it when they joined.
 

Dean S

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,080
Reaction score
227
Points
63
i am not that interested in gerrymandering states.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
8,776
Reaction score
842
Points
113
DC should be returned to Maryland's jurisdiction.
Incorrect. DC’s square should be made whole again, as it was always intended, and it absolutely should be a separate state.

It would have more people than Wyoming, Alaska, both Dakotas, and maybe Montana?

So by definition, it’s voters mean more than the voters of those states.
 
Top Bottom