The constitution, the electoral college, congress and the senate, and the legal system etc? All that stuff dates back to when news was spread by guys on horseback tossing leaflets and voting might be a show of hands.
We’re getting moldy. :eek:
Peace,
mangeorge
Sounds like GD material.
Main problem is that the laws and precedents which are already on the books are, more and more, getting routinely ignored by TPTB. If the US government as a whole (tho mainly the executive branch) didn’t feel free to ignore decades and centuries of well-established practices we probably wouldn’t hear the complaint in the OP. In particular I deplore all the games which revolve around gerrymandering, when anyone with a shred of conscience would realize that drawing district lines via an impartial review committee is the best thing for the country, but I guess not.
However I’ve never been a fan of the two party system. I’d love to see proportional representation so that I can be sure that someone (preferably from the Green Party) is certain to represent my views in Washington. Instead I have a Republican good old boy who has a mortal lock on his district (via of course gerrymandering) for the rest of his political career because I have virtually no prayer of voting the bozo out of office.
<mod>
John’s right.
Off to Great Debates.
IMHO > GD
</mod>
The Constitution: A little cluttered. Language is outdated. The 2nd needs to say “anybody except bad people can have a gun.” Get rid of that contentious “militia” stuff. Let states say who’s bad.
The Electoral College: Gone. We’re all smart enough to vote now. And we got tvs. Do away with term limits. If you don’t like 'em, don’t vote for 'em.
Congress and Senate: Basically, what John DiFool (above) said.
The Legal System: Abolish the death penalty. All it does is cost money and pit good people against each other. Make lawyers and judges wear proper wigs. Legalize pot and treat drug abuse as a medical problem. That’ll close a few prisons.
Do I have to cite all this stuff? :eek:
It’s only outdated if someone comes up with a better idea. As of yet, the only contender is Parliamentary government which is only minorly different, but does seem to encourage single-party rule which allows the government to move faster, which can be good or bad depending on how watchful the general populace is. American style* leads to a bit more conservative behavior which can theoretically allow for better long term planning.
- I’m actually not sure what non-parliamentary government is called, a la the USA…?
I’m for a periodic review of laws-we just keep adding to the mess of archaic, poorly worded, and ancient statutes that get tacked on to everything. Also, write laws in plain english, not the legal gobbldygook (I know this will be opposed by the legal industry-it is one more way to keep their hold on things), and abolish grand juries (the UK seems to get along without them).
I have come to disagree. From re-reading the OP, which asks a question, and the few replies, this thread seems to be more about discussion. Opinions and ideas, not argument. A venue for venting frustration, if you will.
This thread would be better suited for IMHO, or maybe even MPSIMS.
Compromise is always going to involve frustration; potentially, much more so than tyranny.
“Democracy is the worst system of government ever invented … except for all the others.” – S.L. Clemens
Factual response: The American system of having a strong, more-or-less directly elected Chief Executive who is also Head of State, as opposed to the Parliamentary System, is generally termed the Presidential System. Even those who object to this terminology will be aware of what you mean by it, and the distinction you are seeking to draw by using it.
Yes, changes are needed. Eliminating the Electoral College would be a good idea. However, something needs to be in place to ensure that the President represents and leads the nation and not just a sectional or partisan portion of it.
I would love to see the House expanded to double or triple the present size, re-establishing the relationship between representative and constituents that used to be a characteristic of the job and no longer is. I never thought I’d be saying anything good on the Dope about Jesse Helms, but that was one thing he prided himself on doing – and not merely for supporters but for those who opposed his stances, because they were his constituents. As the average population size of districts gets larger, that communication between representative and represented is vanishing.
Mandate fairly-drawn compact districts, by Constitutional amendment if necessary. If not, use Reynolds v, Sims as precedent for having the courts intervctoene and force such districting.
Make “government by eminence gris” illegal. I don’t care whether it was Col. House, Harry Hopkins, or Karl Rove, the constitution provides that the chief advisors to the President be appointed by him and confirmed by the Senate. End runs around that are or should be illegal.
Oh, and mandate that schoolchildren be educated on the difference between law and (statute) laws. The idea that the legislature can simply ignore human rights,and that’s OK because “they’re the ones that pass a law” is inimical to our remaining a free people.
But no, the system we have is working quite well, except for needing some fine tuning. So the general thesis of the OP is out of whack IMO.
Gerrymandering is one of those “well established practices”. The term dates from 1812, and was used to refer to a district that was sepcially drawn to elect a Democratic-Republican.
To be a dissenting voice, I like the two party system. I like the electoral college. I have no problem with the idea that presidents can have informal advisors. They have as much right to get advice from people as you or I do, and so long as these people don’t run an executive department, it’s not Congress’s business. I like the way the government is. And I think making changes just to make changes, or to make it more “democratic” or to “be sure that someone is certain to represent [your] views in Washington” is a good way to risk messing something up.
I’d move the election to the weekend. Have the polls open Saturday Morining and close Sunday Evening. My first scheme was to have Saturday voting, but this would be hard on Jewish Voters. Also, having a two day scheme would cut down on pundits calling the race before the Polls close on the West coast. I’d get rid of the electrical college, give representatives four year terms, and impose term limits: three four year terms for reps, three six year terms for senators.
In general our contitution has served us well. I’m really leery of sweeping changes, given the morons who would be in charge of making such changes. I’d much rather have a system of government designed by Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison than one designed by Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner. Even if the third amendment looks kind of silly in the modern world.
Polycarp: I’d always heard Churchill as the source for your quote. You’re probably right, though.
The thing is, Ralph, that some of the “legal gobbledygook” is simply the technical language of one profession. I have no problem with vanadium triiodide or 1,2-dichloroisopentane; they’re mouthfuls, but they define chemicals that a metallurgist or organic chemist may need to work with. They’re the technical language of the trade.
Likewise, stuff like “joint tenancy” vs. “tenancy by the entireties” and “per stirpes” is gobbledygook to you and me, but they’re important daily concepts that make things clear to those in legal professions.
Imagine yourself a judge. Frank dies, and makes you his executor. Frank and Ernest have been partners in their car repair shop for 30 years. They own the shop building, tools, the business as an ongoing business with repeat trade, jointly. You can sell Frank’s half of the business to Ernest or to a new partner Ernest is willing to partner with. On the other hand, Frank and his widow Mildred owned their house together. Frank doesn’t own half – his share passes to Mildred automatically, because they were tenants by the entireties to each other.
Mildred gets 60% of Frank’s estate, and that doesn’t include the house – it passed separately to her, as co-tenant by the entireties. His two insurance policies go, one to Mildred and one to the estate. She gets all of the first one, and 60% of the other one, along with 60% of his bank accounts, stock shares, and so on. Now, Frank and Mildred had three kids, but Frank Jr. died in a car accident, two years after marrying Jennifer, and the year after Frank III (Chip is what everyone calls him) was born. Sara also died before Frank, the year after the twins were born and a month after little Becky’s traumatic birth, which she never recovered from. Gary, the other boy, is in good health, and has four fine kids with his wife.
Frank’s will provides that the other 40% of his estate go to his children or their descendants, per stirpes. That tells you immediately how to split it up: divide the 40% into three equal shares of 13.3% each. Gary, the surviving child, gets one. The other two go to the kids of Frank Jr. and Sara, one share to each dead child’s kids. So Chip, like Gary, gets 13.3% of the estate. But the twins and Becky each get 1/3 of Sara’s share, or 4.4% apiece. Gary’s kids get nothing, because their father is still alive to inherit. How do you know that? Because “per stirpes” is legalese shorthand for, “Split it equally among the primary heirs, and if it passes to their heirs, split the individual shares equally.” Frank could, I suppose, write all that out, and change it each time someone has a kid or dies. But two Latin words do the job equally well.
I myself hate legal gobbledygook – but I do respect it as having a valid and important function.
Ooh! Get back in the witness box, you’re too sharp to live!
It’s called a “presidential” or “separation-of-powers” system.
That is not true. Statutes are written in “legal gobbldygook” because that is the only language suited to the purpose. (Discussion in this old thread.) It’s like Jewish religious law – it all starts with the plain and simple Ten Commandments, but when you try to apply them IRL to unanticipated situations, ultimately you require a whole Talmud of commentaries and explications.
When I bought my house my agent and I went over the papers I needed to sign for over three hours, her explaining to me what I was agreeing to. And that didn’t cover everything in fine detail. In the end she told me that would just have to trust her and the laws that protected me in my relationship with her.
The mortgage broker told me basically the same thing about the loan papers.
Things turned out well, but I still wonder what risk I was at, being totally naive in the transaction.
ralph124c has done this sort of drive-by post before on the topic of legal drafting, but when pressed for detail, or corrected by other posters, did not respond. See: The necessity of lawyers (and other legal folk), posts 11 and 42, and the various responses to those posts.
Other than the President, what term limits are there?
Lots!
term limits
That Cite talks mostly about term limits at the state level.
This thread, per the OP, was talking about government at the Federal Level.
So, I ask again. Except for the President, what term limits are there?