A Modest Proposal by dreamtrove

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

A Modest Proposal

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Sunday, February 19, 2006 20:10
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 585
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, February 18, 2006 2:08 PM

It strikes me as I go over these presidents again how awful some of them were, IMHO, and how terrible the last two, Bush and Clinton have been. How sub-par most of the preceding presidents have been, and the real corkers we've had in the past.

I humbly suggest that we eliminate the position. It isn't like a president really does anything other than start wars, promote his friends, and follow egotistical selfish ambition. The elctoral process is totally corrupt, and there's little chance we'll ever get a good one. Let's just be done with the whole idea.

Congress can go on, and the executive branch can be reduced to a cabinet with more power than they have now, and they can be appointed by the majority and voted on by congress. Vice President, of course, will be eliminated as well. I think that given the efficacy of the post, this will save the taxpayers a good half a million to no ill effect.

The duties of the President and Vice president will be divided equally and appropriately to the remaining sections of govt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:42 PM

DREAMTROVE

Bump.

I thought this was something that I wanted actual feedback on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:49 PM

CAUSAL

Well, given that the three-branch system was created in order to provide those good old checks and balances, I'd say that getting rid of one whole branch would actually increase corruption, rather than decrease it, because more power would be concentrated in fewer hands. Just because you perceive a couple of presidents are sub-par doesn't mean that 1) everyone agrees; 2) that justifies the elimination of the branch; 3) eliminating the branch would solve the problem of knucklheads in politics.

My $0.02.

Plus, point of interest, that would mean that America wasn't America anymore, unless you were thinking of getting a Constitutional amendment to make it nice and legal...

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 7:27 PM

RUXTON

DT, I'd second your motion, but wouldn't stop there.

And Causal, you are, of course, correct about checks and balances, but the politicians are in it for the checks ($$). Balances go out the window.

I personally believe: that government is best which governs least. What we need, I believe, are massive cuts in the size of ALL governments in this country, but especially the federal.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 7:28 PM

DREAMTROVE

Casual,

Yeah. I thought of this. I'm not suggesting getting rid of the whole branch. There'd still be a Secretary of State and all. If you want, they can be elected positions. I'd like a sort of pseudo-democracy. It would be nice if everyone in the military got to vote for secretary of defense; folks in the diplomatic corps could vote for Secretary of State.

People could vote for president, if he didn't have any power, or a lot less. But presidents seem to make more power for presidents by appointing peoplelike Gonzalez who make more power for presidents, and over the years, it's gotten to be a problem. I'm just thinking at this point that the office isn't creating added value to the system, and maybe we're better off without it.

Of course it would be a constitutional amendment. and folks would vote on it. Maybe a referendum. Or if there was a still a president, it would be like an ombudsman for the populous.

Anyway, just another radical reactionary idea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 7:34 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Plus, point of interest, that would mean that America wasn't America anymore, unless you were thinking of getting a Constitutional amendment to make it nice and legal...

It wouldn’t work anyway. The executive branch is there for a reason. The president holds the office of executor consul, i.e. the ruler of the state. In that regard he acts as somewhat of a figurehead. Even though he has real powers, he does not actually control the state, but the significance of the position is that if anyone does want to control the state, they must first unseat the president, an elected civilian who controls the military. It’s really a very ingenious political system. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. So in effect, the president acts as a pseudo-dictator to guard against the existence of an actual dictator. That’s not his only significant role, but it’s, in my mind, the most important.

Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2006 8:10 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:

DT, I'd second your motion, but wouldn't stop there.

And Causal, you are, of course, correct about checks and balances, but the politicians are in it for the checks ($$). Balances go out the window.

I personally believe: that government is best which governs least. What we need, I believe, are massive cuts in the size of ALL governments in this country, but especially the federal.

Ruxton,

The Checks get deposited to up the bank Balances. Anyway, hear hear and amen and all of that to all of that.

Quote:
It wouldn’t work anyway. The executive branch is there for a reason. The president holds the office of executor consul, i.e. the ruler of the state. In that regard he acts as somewhat of a figurehead. Even though he has real powers, he does not actually control the state, but the significance of the position is that if anyone does want to control the state, they must first unseat the president, an elected civilian who controls the military. It’s really a very ingenious political system. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. So in effect, the president acts as a pseudo-dictator to guard against the existence of an actual dictator. That’s not his only significant role, but it’s, in my mind, the most important.

Finn,

You are a very clever guy.

Okay, I have to admit, I hadn't thought of this, and you're absolutely right. Without an actual head some dominant Senator or Military leader would become the de facto head of state by virtue of having superior influence to everyone else.

How about this. How about we reduce his powers considerably. I think the biggest flaw is in the appointments. We delegate a new process to picking the cabinet. This agenda driven machine is a menace. The least of our problems is that Condi Rice is a questionable Secretary of State. I still like her, but maybe in some other role, she simply lacks the raw tact to deal with other nations diplomatically. But much worse is Gonzalez as Attorney General, Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense is somewhere between wrong and absurd.

The thing is, the Secretary of Defense should represent the Pentagon, not the Whitehouse. Rummy works for Cheney, unless I have that backwards, but the two are one political entity.

If the depts had more power, the landscape would be different, and it would *force* differing opinions, which would be a *good* thing.

The pentagon would never select Rummy to represent it. It might select Powell or some career military leader. The diplomatic corps might select George H. W. Bush, Baker, or as secretary of State. Or something. Differing leaders with different backgrounds, experiences and opinions would then meet in the oval office and discuss courses of action.

Then, with the return of the rule of law, that action would be forwarded to congress to vote on, or to take part in the formulation of. Anyone subverting this process would be sumarily dismissed.

I can't believe it didn't occur to me until just now that the whole torture memorandum had a serious transgression that has been entirely overlooked:

The white house counsel consulted with military lawyers, and university professors, then ignored the advice of military lawyers, and took the university professors word, made a memorandum and then instructed people in the military to make it public policy. The executive cannot do this. It can't make public policy. Mr. Gonzalez and Gen. Myers should be dismissed. I mean, they should be dismissed anyway, but they should be dismissed specifically for this. Oh, if I ran the govt. everyone would be fired four times over.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE