It seems like every year the candidates get poorer and poorer. I have to go back a long time to remember a President that I was excited about. Just like the Monarchy maybe it's time to jettison the idea of a President. Perhaps a parliamentary type of government with a figure head type of President, with no real power, like the Queen of England. What say you.
Congress might actually have to pass legislation then.
It would be one hell of an experiment! LOL
The thought of going through another election, where we'll end up having to decide between a douche and a turd sandwich depresses me.
We should throw out the Constitution and revert to the Articles of Confederation.
Nope... go to a multi-party system like Germany where the President is 'elected' by a compromise.
a) people would be more involved in politics than simply red team or blue team 'winning'
b) compromise for the greater good would be encouraged
c) the 'extremists' in the parties... even the socialists or the 'don't spend a dime' people would have some pull.... which would keep the centrists from colluding.
Depends....can we accomplish this by tomorrow?
I think this year we have the best we've seen in awhile.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
(10-08-2015 05:25 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: [ -> ]We should throw out the Constitution and revert to the Articles of Confederation.
If the government refuses to obey the Constitution, why would it obey the Articles?
Well We already have a No compromise Dictator in office currently. That didn't work out very well for working Americans.
The issue with the President is that the office has too many official jobs. Maybe separating CINC and chief diplomat out from the National Administrator role would offer more constraints.
(10-09-2015 07:13 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]The issue with the President is that the office has too many official jobs. Maybe separating CINC and chief diplomat out from the National Administrator role would offer more constraints.
In other words, go back to the original concept of the Constitution, where the president was CINC and chief diplomat and the congress was national administrator?
(10-09-2015 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]In other words, go back to the original concept of the Constitution, where the president was CINC and chief diplomat and the congress was national administrator?
The Constitution poses no threat to our current form of government, and if it ever did the people who operate the government would just ignore it, anyway.
Most Americans appear to be at peace with that arrangement.
I'm pretty happy with the Constitution, thanks.
(10-09-2015 04:49 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ]I'm pretty happy with the Constitution, thanks.
You may be happy with it, but you're not governed by it, except in a purely pro-forma sense.
(10-09-2015 05:50 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ] (10-09-2015 04:49 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ]I'm pretty happy with the Constitution, thanks.
You may be happy with it, but you're not governed by it, except in a purely pro-forma sense.
Still is better than the alternatives.
The alternative of a (federal) Government that adheres to the Constitution would be far better than what we have now, IMHO. But I realize that most Americans aren't interested in that.
(10-09-2015 07:04 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ]The alternative of a (federal) Government that adheres to the Constitution would be far better than what we have now, IMHO. But I realize that most Americans aren't interested in that.
The problem with this is that nobody really agrees what the Constitution says. When it was written, the primary motive of the founders was to craft a document that could be ratified at all costs, and soon. Without a constitution - any constitution - the country would have been a failed nation before it got started.
To accomplish that goal - ratification - people and states with polar opposite views had to each believe that the constitution did what they thought it should do. That ambiguity still exists, as do the divisions that existed even before the Revolution.
I don't believe that it would be remotely possible today to craft a constitution capable of being ratified by 75% of the states, much less 75% of the people. So we are left with a situation that half of the country will always think will be our undoing. And maybe they are right. After all, it's only worked for a couple of hundred years, so we haven't really had enough time to judge its usefulness.
(10-09-2015 05:50 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ] (10-09-2015 04:49 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ]I'm pretty happy with the Constitution, thanks.
You may be happy with it, but you're not governed by it, except in a purely pro-forma sense.
