Shane wrote:
Here's how the problem can be fixed. Rather than re-assigning these issues to the states why not change the way the system works?
Whip the votes that deal with money (meaning you must vote with your party or sit as an independent/change party if you vote differently). This will ensure that a party takes a unified stance on an issue and members can't just be creating different facets of one party. For example the Tea Party republicans would split away from the mainstream Republicans if they didn't agree with the way their leader (John Boehner now) wanted them to vote. Same would go if Democrats felt differently than their leader (Nancy Pelosi) did.
Secondly make it so the Senate can't radically change a bill. The Senate should have no more input than providing changes and sending the bill back if it's not up to standard. The same voting restrictions as mentioned previously would apply in the Senate.
Finally, make it so that the President can't create laws, the President is the head of the executive, that's all he should be doing. He can set the tone of the session of Congress but that's it.
With this Congress would actually be forced to get something done since their necks would be on the line as a party next time. Deliberate attempts at sabotage would be stopped since it'd be party vs. party not party vs. party vs. president. This would also be good because it would diversify the entire political system and allow for other parties to make a comeback.
The President of course will lose some power in that he'd be largely ceremonial but that's where the threat comes in. NOTE: The President would still be able to veto if the bill was unconstitutional or violated some other clause. If he can't get Congress on his side, should he really be elected again? He should be making sure his vision matches that of one of the potential leaders of Congress in a campaign.
PS: This is really just a pipe dream, it'd never happen. It's somewhat similar to the
French government in some aspects. The mere fact that something like this would never happen proves the system is broken. It's the 21st century, your government is not going to be overthrown. You don't need all the checks and balances you created when your nation was born.
First off, I think the system in place is fine, but could do with some minor changes (none of which are similar).
I don't agree with forcing people to vote with their party. I'd rather be an independent then forced to vote with the Republican party. In all honesty, the Tea Partyers should be their own party. What I like about the British and Canadian systems is that there are some separate parties aside from the Liberals and Conservatives. I think that is more important than forcing people in the party to vote. The other problem is that regardless of what the party wants you to do or the threats it makes, you'll probably get re-elected anyway if your constituents like you. So first, we should have more independents and more parties. We could probably use some more bi-partisanship as well.
I don't agree the Senate shouldn't be able to make changes. If that were the case, it would just become like the defunct House of Lords in Britain. What purpose would the Senate have at that point if they couldn't make major changes? What really needs to happen is that senators need to go back to being selected by state legislatures, not the people. In that way, senators have the interests of the state in mind and don't have to worry about pleasing people which is the major concern they face and why they make major changes. In a sense, senators have become House representatives since they are elected by the people.
The President doesn't create laws. He has executive orders and the responsibility of carrying out laws passed by Congress, but no law making status. With that problem, Congress must make laws and take power back away from the executive. If Congress doesn't do anything, then it's left to the president to make all the decisions and rules.
The "real" problem to me is the media. The media focuses more on the president than on Congress. Congress usually has a lower approval rating than the president, yet the president gets all the press, the fame, the glory for something done. If the media focuses more on Congress, I think you would see a lot more changes and less focus on the power of the president.
What you want is a British system, but that's not going to fly. The constitution designed the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to separate out power, not consolidate it. You are recommending consolidation which in my mind as a conservative does not bode well. I'm confused as to why you would support such a position with your views except that that is the type of government you live under now. I really don't think it's any better.
The president is not supposed to be ceremonial. There are a lot of things in government that need one person to make all the decisions and not 535 men and women trying to agree. How would you decide when to use nuclear missiles, carry out a war, make treaties with other countries, etc? The executive serves a much larger purpose than what you think. Reducing his power would bring on a lot more problems and probably not solve much in the end.
In truth, the system is designed on checks and balances and separation of powers, both of which are good principles. You wish to remove both and consolidate most power into Congress. But if Congress is already messed up, how do you expect it to get better with more power? Doesn't really make sense.
The fact it wouldn't happen is common sense, not proof that the system is broken. Not only would it go against everything in the Constitution, it would completely change the face of American democracy (most likely for the worst). Checks and balances as well as the separation of powers is necessary to a successful democracy. It's the people in those elected positions and the people who vote (or don't vote) that are the problem.
)
