Design a more Perfect form of Government

[modest]

Yes, until the recent SC decision States and/or Cities could restrict ownership to any level, including banning ownership. Technically they still can, but can no longer outright ban. Once the US takes jurisdiction, by law or amendment the States cannot enact or enforce law over riding the National Law. Election of Senators, Abortion, Segregation, Voter Rights (suffrage) and a host of regulations for business, just a few other examples....

 

In United States v. Cruikshank then again in Presser v. Illinois, the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment is only a limit to the power of congress...

 

"The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this . . . means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National government . . . "

 

States have the authority (so long as their state constitution allows) to limit gun ownership however they see fit.

 

What you are arguing above sounds like incorporation which is true for many federal amendments, but so far is not (or at least appears not to be) true for the second amendment.

 

This provision [the second amendment] has not been held to be incorporated against the states. See Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

 

Incorporation (Bill of Rights) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

It is still possible for the Supreme Court to incorporate the right to bear arms, but they have 3 cases of strong precedent to overturn in order to do this - clearly why they've yet to do so.

 

~modest

[Nitack]

Dude, not a single response. :evil: Not are hard question, Yea or nay will suffice on all counts.

 

1. Should there be a legislative branch? What powers should be vested in them? What is the structure?
   
2. Do we require an executive branch or figure? What powers should be vested in them? What is the structure?
   
3. Do we require a judicial branch? What powers should be vested in them? What is the structure?
   
4. Do we require an administrative branch? What powers should be vested in them? What is the structure?
   

 

:evil:

[jackson33]

Dude, not a single response. :) Not are hard question, Yea or nay will suffice on all counts.

 

:D

 

I have given thought to these questions and the originals many times. It is an issue, I am interested in and would like to see some actual response to what could be or should be changed. My problem, is that I like the way the system has worked and frankly the ease things do change without rebellion or in rebellion. Every government (43) has transfered power to the next passively (not present) as in Adams to Jefferson to virtually every outgoing there to witness the next.

 

There are some problems, not sure could be fixed, that go to the electorate, media and coincidentally to the administration of government itself. Educating to public or controlling the media cannot be forced, nor should they be.

 

The 'Three Branches', under the 'Checks and Balances' provided is a remarkable record in itself, when practiced. I do think a possible forth branch, under the auspicious purpose of 'administering' for/to the Legislative and Executive (which now administer) could be installed and probably with out an amendment. Government as is, is as inefficient as any entity of the US or any government on this planet. The court system as is, is limited to what come before a court and the District Appeals system including the SC, take years of litigation.

 

If possible, we could have your 'Administrative Branch, headed by a panel of elite business/legal/social members of 12 or 24 people, some how appointed by either the current 12 Circuit Courts or some rotating system of State Legislatures. Confirmation could be required, but by the Senate only, not the House or Executive. Purpose would be to deal with complaints of the public or government officials at the administration level. That being the same as in any BUSINESS and based on principle of productivity. I think there are hundreds today, maybe thousand of folks in retirement that would could take these 12-24 positions, say for 2 years. The first being 2-4-6 years to allow for rotation. This would or at least could add addition voice from the public sector, eliminate influence of politicians in administration and give some continuity to the a FUNCTIONS of government.

Since my reservation would be 'adding' another bureaucracy, this branch should be heavily mandated to purpose, specified and have the authority of at least the combined department heads today, even possibly be presided over by the VP, as the 25th member and not the figure head of VP over the Senate.

 

I throw this out there, only as an idea...

[Nitack]

My thoughts for the administrative branch stemmed from the fact that all currently fall under the control of the executive. Unfortunately in times past, and especially during the current US administration, the executive has used this oversight as carte blanche to use regulation as a backdoor form of legislating. Presidents in many cases entirely ignore the purpose of the congress, and try to implement their own will instead of the will of the peoples branch of government. The fact that under the current administration the EPA has basically done nothing to protect the environment and in many cases acted in ways to violate the Environmental Protection Act in order to help big business. This I find to be an abuse of power, but under the way our system is set up, the executive is able to get away with it unless the congress impeaches him/her for it, which a congress is loath to do in most cases.

 

I thought an independent branch might be an interesting way to change that sad trend in our system. A Director of the overall administrative branch, and individual components to be recommended by the executive, approved by the congress, and reviewed by the supreme court to ensure that they are actually carrying out the legislation passed correctly. Or some such setup like that. Beholden to none, working for the people. I do like your idea of instituting a business type model though. Find a way to cut the bureaucracy.

[questor]

There are several impediments inherent in any form of government:

1. Lack of consensus on issues, e.g. abortion, affirmative action, taxation

2. Tendency of the elected to ''work'' the system. almost any group of people will eventually find a way to get more money from any position of authority

3. Lack of a clear explanation of job description. e.g. some judges MAKE law

instead of APPLY law

4. Basic human nature. people want to benefit themselves more than to benefit society

5. In our political system, those who promise most to special interests

will be the elected ones. this is what ''pork'' is all about and this is why politicians win.

6. Lack of oversight by neutral observers. if an neutral ombudsman were to give advice on the now famous Alaskan ''bridge to nowhere'', what would he say?

Regardless of the set-up or sructure of a government, without addressing the above points, you will have what you see now. UNMANAGEABLE, INEFFICIENT, UNWORKABLE, UNANSWERABLE to the electorate.

[Nitack]

There are several impediments inherent in any form of government:

1. Lack of consensus on issues, e.g. abortion, affirmative action, taxation

 

So what is our mechanism to address this issue???

 

That is kind of the point of this exercise. Can some objective, logical, science geeks come up with ways to address issues with traditional government.

 

2. Tendency of the elected to ''work'' the system. almost any group of people will eventually find a way to get more money from any position of authority

 

I think that sounds very much like an argument for term limits...

 

3. Lack of a clear explanation of job description. e.g. some judges MAKE law

instead of APPLY law

 

Sounds like our "Intention" document is perfect for this. Perhaps rather than the supreme court being able to interpret law their recourse is to either decide current law stands or send it back to the legislature for immediate (with in a certain amount of time) clarification?

 

4. Basic human nature. people want to benefit themselves more than to benefit society

 

5. In our political system, those who promise most to special interests

will be the elected ones. this is what ''pork'' is all about and this is why politicians win.

 

So instead of bitching about what is wrong with the current system how about you help us devise a better system??? Seriously, your missing the whole point of this thread.

 

6. Lack of oversight by neutral observers. if an neutral ombudsman were to give advice on the now famous Alaskan ''bridge to nowhere'', what would he say?

 

SO PROPOSE A BETTER WAY

 

Regardless of the set-up or sructure of a government, without addressing the above points, you will have what you see now. UNMANAGEABLE, INEFFICIENT, UNWORKABLE, UNANSWERABLE to the electorate.

 

The overall theme of my response will remain unchanged to answer this. The whole point of this thread is to devise something better using examples of what does not work in the current government. How about we talk about fixes to all those problems instead of fixating on them?

[jackson33]

The Executive Branch, when taking offices inherits the different Bureaucracies. Short of the Department Head and his/her staff, others are tenured by labor contracts and near impossible to fire or be replaced. Many times actions perceived by some department are actions, goals or interpretation of purpose have been set years before and not possible for one administration to control or alter. Unfortunately the Administration in office, takes the blame or credit for all actions while in office. Additionally, most actions are reactionary or as a result of new law or complaints from long standing laws. Executive Orders, are the only means a President has to address these problems and then even these cannot be retroactive, before the administration.

 

In a manner of speaking, a forth branch or one concerned with setting the standards for all department, hiring/firing (dealing with unions), procedures (job descriptions), appointments to head (not oversee or executive participation) and then be responsible for a steady pace of those functions, regardless of who the president is, then being responsible...In fairness to those employees, it would be impractical to expect them to be loyal to an administration and objective to there purpose at the same or expect the President to write Executive orders 24/7/365 to micro manage their affairs.

 

If a forth branch, could be and allowed re-appointment (holding to two year intervals) the efficiency or the working mechanisms of government would slowly change with the changes in society or the executives elected. Job performance and efficiency (productivity) increase and all blame go to that branch, not to the ones who cannot control...IMO.

[jackson33]

Modest; When a SC makes a definitive decision, as in the DC action, law has been established. No less than the Abortion decision or the controversial Gitmo decision. Its said, the DC was the first such decision (definitive) based in total on the 2nd A, since ratified in 1791. Keep in mind the decision is loosely based or restriction can be legally imposed, just not the outright banning of any/all fire arms. This continues to give City/States or in fact the Federal to control the issue as it relates to their society or needs.

 

The 2nd Amendment IMO, was a right to protect not only the State but the persons home and family from that same threat. What would be the purpose in defending the State, WITH OUT purpose?

 

Since it was loosely worded, actually creating more problems than solving, it may be up to congress to address the issue or just making the issue a States total right, short of specific and obvious restrictions (Tanks, Nuclear etc,). However, it would very difficult to get 2/3rds of todays states to accept (ratify) the same general law (amendment)...

[questor]

I take the trouble to participate in your thread and right off you give me a blast of crap!

''So instead of bitching about what is wrong with the current system how about you help us devise a better system??? Seriously, your missing the whole point of this thread''

If you don't understand or agree upon the problems that need fixing, you aren't going to fix them. Do yo really think any improvements will be instituted

because of this thread?

[Nitack]

I take the trouble to participate in your thread and right off you give me a blast of crap!

''So instead of bitching about what is wrong with the current system how about you help us devise a better system??? Seriously, your missing the whole point of this thread''

If you don't understand or agree upon the problems that need fixing, you aren't going to fix them. Do yo really think any improvements will be instituted

because of this thread?

 

Sorry if my response was a bit over the top. I fully appreciate your pointing out the problems with the current government, but the whole point of this thread was to think of ways to address those problems, not necessarily to vent about them.

 

"Do yo really think any improvements will be instituted because of this thread?"

Nope, but it is interesting and a nice exercise. Do you really think your pessimistic response is adding anything to this discussion or is it just attempting to put a roadblock in the way of what the goal is?

[charles brough]

Government cannot be perfect. All through prehistory we lived in communes in which we were sovereign. However, as the irrigation communes grew ever larger, in Sumeria and Egypt, for example, people had to ORGANIZE. That meant they had to turn sovereignty over to representatives who became the rulers. We had no choice and we still have none. There is now no such thing as a democracy. What we have is a representative, two party constitutional republic. What makes it function so poorly is that we are so obsessed with the "democracy" myth that we have grown to hate our rulers. That results in us getting really low quality leadership. We force these psychopaths, once elected, to get what they want through the worst and most devious means. No wonder our government is so corrupt.

 

This and much more can be found in the new book "Destiny and Civilization":

Thttp://www.authorhouse.com/bookstore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=54563

[Nitack]

Government cannot be perfect. All through prehistory we lived in communes in which we were sovereign. However, as the irrigation communes grew ever larger, in Sumeria and Egypt, for example, people had to ORGANIZE. That meant they had to turn sovereignty over to representatives who became the rulers. We had no choice and we still have none. There is now no such thing as a democracy. What we have is a representative, two party constitutional republic. What makes it function so poorly is that we are so obsessed with the "democracy" myth that we have grown to hate our rulers. That results in us getting really low quality leadership. We force these psychopaths, once elected, to get what they want through the worst and most devious means. No wonder our government is so corrupt.

 

This and much more can be found in the new book "Destiny and Civilization":

Thttp://www.authorhouse.com/bookstore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=54563

 

Once again, this thread is not supposed to be about criticizing the current government. It is supposed to be an effort to see if, using historical examples of what aspects have worked and what aspects have not worked, a bunch of geeks can logically discuss and hash out a better system of government than there currently is.

 

I fully appreciate your view point, but would appreciate that either this thread withers on the vine or actually makes progress. Go hijack some other thread :naughty:

[charles brough]

Once again, this thread is not supposed to be about criticizing the current government. It is supposed to be an effort to see if, using historical examples of what aspects have worked and what aspects have not worked, a bunch of geeks can logically discuss and hash out a better system of government than there currently is.

 

In my study of history and prehistory, my experience is that governing systems change as the need changes. For example, feudalism develops when communes or communities are so plagued by gangs from the outside that they are willing to pay protection and have one gang come in, stay, and then provide protection. This results in longed-for stability. "Democracy" was once a system communes had in prehistory, but when the communes got too large, they had to organize (about 5,000 years ago). That meant a hierarchy, representatives, rulers. We have never had democracy since. We only have constitutional, multi-party republics---or, more often, single-party autocracies---in which the people have the common ideological bond between them that they are sovereign ("democracy"). (The whole reason we have such a low opinion of government and "politics" is that our rulers do not do what we expect and want. But believing in "democracy" helps to ideologically bind the world into a global system which has made possible a common, international trade system in a world so badly divided into religious blocks (Islam, Christendom, Asian Marxism) that constant war over resources would otherwise be unavoidable.

[Nitack]

In my study of history and prehistory, my experience is that governing systems change as the need changes. For example, feudalism develops when communes or communities are so plagued by gangs from the outside that they are willing to pay protection and have one gang come in, stay, and then provide protection. This results in longed-for stability. "Democracy" was once a system communes had in prehistory, but when the communes got too large, they had to organize (about 5,000 years ago). That meant a hierarchy, representatives, rulers. We have never had democracy since. We only have constitutional, multi-party republics---or, more often, single-party autocracies---in which the people have the common ideological bond between them that they are sovereign ("democracy"). (The whole reason we have such a low opinion of government and "politics" is that our rulers do not do what we expect and want. But believing in "democracy" helps to ideologically bind the world into a global system which has made possible a common, international trade system in a world so badly divided into religious blocks (Islam, Christendom, Asian Marxism) that constant war over resources would otherwise be unavoidable.

 

So what I am getting from this post, is that our government needs to have the ability, or flexibility, to evolve with changing times. I think this is a wonderful notion, as we have seen ways in which our government can get bogged down in the past.

 

Well said Charles.