In the other thread on people wanting to change the Constitution, well, there really wasn’t a debate. Suffice it to say I think nearly every proposal a bad one, usually built around the author’s pet prejudices and whims.
Also, I think they are thinking small.
I propose a much mroe radical change: adding a fourth branch to the government.
You’re probably thinking this is rather much, but hear me out. I think the executive is paradoxically too powerful and too hamstrung, while legislatures today increasingly create messes only. The solution? The Anti-Legislature.
The Anti-legislature would be composed of one (yes, one) elected official from each state. The body ncannot propose any new law. Instead, all it can do is delete old ones. After a one-year period from adoption, it can erase any law from the books. It can also reject executive orders at any time.
Well, the proposal in mroe in line with my form of humor than a practical proposal. Not that I think it wouldn’t work, mind you, but that I know there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of it being adopted. I suppose I see the problem as “Congress does not have any effective counterweights, and takes advantage of that lack to do stupid things.” Whether this would overtake/merge/replace the Senate is another question.
What about checks and balances? Who will override the decisions of this body? If their word is final then they are, in fact, in control of the government.
Well, of course, that’s the beauty of it. The branch can’t do anything on their own, and by eliminating laws give up control of what replaces it. They’ll have to show some action in order to please voters, but can do nothing if everyone else is against them. As a more concrete example, if they create holes in the legal system by removing rules or provisions, judges will tend to end up putting impromptu solutions of their own.
But, this kinda sounds like Congress on meth (and in reverse). Let’s say one party is overwhelmingly represented in the Anti-Legislature. I assume they would quickly go about dismantling all laws and procedures put into place by the other side. And, of course, when the other side gets control, they will do the same thing. Aren’t we then left with no law? Maybe your Anti-Legislators should be somehow appointed to a limited term.
I assume you’d be left with laws that neither side opposes. It still doesn’t sound like a great idea, but you’d at least keep the essentials… and anything that hands out [del]bribes[/del] pork to both sides.
A bad idea I think. You’ll end up with laws being erased faster than they are written until either the government collapses or power passes from the rule of law to the whims of individual officials ( since SOMETHING needs to organize the government, and the laws won’t be able to ). Who won’t have laws anymore to say that they can’t take power and do whatever they want.
Not really, since a single state is also easier for a single corporation/pressure group/wealthy people to control. Which is a major reason why the Right is so hot for “states rights”. You’ll find that your single vote means less not more.
Of course people can move to different states if they don’t like the policies of the state in which they reside. Then the states can be incubators for ideas instead of, as the left is so fond of, forcing the entire nation to participate in some big experiment like UHC. Freedom of choice…fighting words for the left.
Garbage. The Right is and always has been the implacable enemy of freedom.
What people like you want is to set up a system where a state can screw over it’s population without interference. Where they can segregate schools or declare women to be second class citizens or imprison gays without that pesky federal government enforcing the people’s civil rights.
People like me?!? Methinks you need to take that tin foil hat off your noggin. I’ve argued with some loony lefties but how can one argue with a person who truly believes that the opposition party wants to imprison gays and segregate schools.
What is freedom in your mind? Don’t you realize that we give up our freedom when we give up our responsibilities so the nanny state can take care of us? What YOU seem to want is a system where the feds can screw over it’s population without interference…AND we will have no place else to go. Where’s the freedom in that?
It’s fine with me if you disagree with the the very principles that this country was founded upon. But, honestly, if I felt about the liberals the way you feel about the conservatives I would be looking for another country to live in.
This sounds like an effective way to let an…ambitious political party erase the other side, if they got control of this governmental body. Don’t like social security? Gone! Don’t like Medicare? Gone! Don’t like restrictions on businesses? Gone! Don’t like the 22nd amendment, or the 13th…?
One party could turn the country into their dream country through the process of elimination in a matter of weeks, and rest of government would be able to do nothing to stop it - excepting to destroy the rest of law when (and if) they finally were able to get control again.
I didn’t say we were going to be living in tyranny. As soon as the government is picking up the tab for anything (housing, UHC, welfare) they gain some degree of control over you. And rightfully so…we wouldn’t want government to just hand out money without some measures in place to ensure that money isn’t wasted. Nothing is free…there are always strings attached.
So, if the government is paying for health care, do they have an incentive to outlaw tobacco? Absolutely, since it results in higher government expenditures. The FDA has already been given the authority to regulate it…what’s next? Fatty foods causing too much heart disease? Tax fatty foods or sugar laden sodas to offset the cost. You are already seeing this proposed in certain states. This is an incremental loss of liberty…taking away our ability to make decisions, however stupid, and to live with the consequences.
I’ve always thought that there is a problem in that we have a body constantly making new laws, but rarely if ever updating or eradicating old ones. However, this is a bad idea. It would be a partisan spaghetti fight (like everything else in politics is turning into these days :mad:) and you’d need to be obsessively attentive just to know whether or not it was legal to walk your dog on any given day. A better idea would be to require congress to have committees that do this (and I’m guessing someone will now point out that there are already committees that do this but they don’t seem to get much accomplished.)
It may have escaped your notice, but to the best of my knowledgeat least, no UHC country has outlawed tobacco or any other unhealthy lifestyle. Perhaps your arguments would have more traction if they actually had something like a basis in reality. You would do well to look around and see what has actually happened in UHC countries before you pull out these ideas.
On the other hand, perhaps the US is incapable of operating a UHC system without becoming what the right fears. If so it is not an inherent feature of UHC but some form of American exceptionalism at work. I would hope that Americans are, in fact, smart enough to be able to do what the people of every other industrialzed democracy has been able to accomplish.
Interesting…this is the way it used to be done. I mourn the loss of history and civics as reasonable courses of study in this country. Before the (17th?) ammendment, senators were appointed by the state governors, not elected from the people. Of course, once the senators figured out they could get money and power by direct election (and special interests), well, you can see why they would want an ammendment…