Elective Office

[JOEBIALEK]

One of the ambitious proposals put forth by former Vice-President Al Gore was the "re-invention" of government. While the Clinton Administration may have made some progress towards promoting greater efficiency, the result was that government actually grew in size mainly because of bureaucratic self-perpetuation. No one in the United States would disagree that the reduction of government waste should be given top priority. However, before tackling such a problem, one must examine the root causes and not merely treat the symptoms.

When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they deliberately left out the "structural path" of elective office but were very clear on names of offices, branches of government, duties of elected officials etcetera. However, what they failed to foresee was the need for elective offices to follow a required path. For example, take the leader of the executive branch; if a person wants to be elected president of the United States, they must first serve as mayor of a city, commissioner of a county and then governor of a state. The two-term limit (eight years) should also be extended to include these lower chief executives as well.

The legislative branch should have a similar path. If one wants to be elected United States senator, they must first serve as a U.S. congressperson from that state. Before serving as a congressperson, they must serve as a councilperson of a city, representative of a state and then as a state senator. The two-term limit should apply here as well.

As for the judicial branch, a United States supreme court justice must serve as a municipal court judge of a city, common pleas court judge of a county, circuit court or district court judge of a state, appeals court judge and state supreme court judge. The two-term limit would apply here also.

Furthermore, the education of these candidates to-be should entail the equivalent of earning a bachelors degree, masters degree and a doctorate in philosophy degree. These degrees must be earned prior to running for elective office. Besides providing a focused academic training it will promote a greater maturity in our candidates before they experience the rigors of their first elective office.

Few could doubt that this path would provide good practical training for those seeking higher office while at the same time establishing a track record that voters could more easily analyze and understand. The two-term limit would allow greater participation because the office would be wide open every eight years. This would force the elected official to properly execute his/her duties and not be as influenced by the various special interest groups.

Government today is often seen as part of the problem rather than a solution to the problem. Perhaps if the United States would consider a path of development for its "philosopher kings" public trust would return and something may actually get done.

[revgoozen]

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK
One of the ambitious proposals put forth by former Vice-President Al Gore was the "re-invention" of government. While the Clinton Administration may have made some progress towards promoting greater efficiency, the result was that government actually grew in size mainly because of bureaucratic self-perpetuation. No one in the United States would disagree that the reduction of government waste should be given top priority. However, before tackling such a problem, one must examine the root causes and not merely treat the symptoms.

i'm in the united states, and i believe that a reduction in waste should not be given first priority. while waste is generally considered to be a negative, it seems far less pressing than making sure that the government works correctly. the bulk of waste reduction can come at the tail end of the implimentation process, as it does in the corporate world.

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK

For example, take the leader of the executive branch; if a person wants to be elected president of the United States, they must first serve as mayor of a city, commissioner of a county and then governor of a state. The two-term limit (eight years) should also be extended to include these lower chief executives as well.

these are the requirements of becoming president, as i understand them.

Section 1 of Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that a President must:

be a natural born citizen of the united States
be at least 35 years old
have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years
In addition, the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that a President may not serve more than 2 terms of 4 years each, even if they have only served as President for 2 or more years of one of those terms.

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK

The legislative branch should have a similar path. If one wants to be elected United States senator, they must first serve as a U.S. congressperson from that state. Before serving as a congressperson, they must serve as a councilperson of a city, representative of a state and then as a state senator. The two-term limit should apply here as well.

this would imply that the house is less valuable than the senate. i think that this is an incorrect charecterization. furthermore, people in a democracy should be aloud to vote for the individual that they think would be best suited for the job. term limits limit democracy.

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK

As for the judicial branch, a United States supreme court justice must serve as a municipal court judge of a city, common pleas court judge of a county, circuit court or district court judge of a state, appeals court judge and state supreme court judge. The two-term limit would apply here also.

this would limit the ability of the judiciary to keep the other two branches of government in check.

[Kinbote]

What we need is to stop abusing the goddamned commerce clause. That'd take care of most of the waste.

Also, shooting a lot of congressmen. Which would also be a lot of fun.

My favorite bit of disgusting waste from the recent transportation bill was the $200 million dollar bridge being built in Alaska to connect a town of 3,000 to one of 50. Thanks, Uncle Sugar!

Moreover, in:re the actual content of this thread, all that shit would just further encourage careerism among politicians: more people unwilling to do things that aren't necessarily popular, and only too enthusiastic to do anything that is.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by UncleLester
Moreover, in:re the actual content of this thread, all that shit would just further encourage careerism among politicians: more people unwilling to do things that aren't necessarily popular, and only too enthusiastic to do anything that is.

Yes, I agree.

What we'd have is even more corrupt politicians that are sponsored and funded by special interests.

It would be like a corrupt version of baseball farm teams... Special interests recruiting "rookie" politicians that they can mold and are successful in proportion to their skill in demagoguery. They'd build them up, piling on funds and other tools, until they are successful in securing the most important positions in government.

There must be allowed space for "movers and shakers", and I think the Founding Fathers made our government's structure with this in mind. I think that's one of our most important ideals. That's the only thing that really can save the government's role in our lives. It's the essence of democracy. Otherwise, government would be even more detatched from society than it stands right now.

[XenonDreams]

I'm not sure this thread comes to us from more than anything but an articulate troll.

The argument is made that there is too much wasteful beuracracy in government, and the suggested solution is making our politicians follow a "career path" and imposing some term limits. I don't really see the correlation. With the exception of a few celeberities, most politicians DO work their way up from the bottom. There's something inhernently undemocratic about limiting who can hold political office based on the political success they have had in the past.

I'm no longer convinced (not that I really was) that term limits are a great idea. I don't think they would really change thing one way or another. Sure, experience counts in bullshitting your way into office, but it also counts in terms of effectively participating in the legislative process. As it happens, I'm taking a class in the legislative process right now, and I've become convinced Congress actually does represent the interests of the people and the states in the balanced way the framers intended. Whether you a communist or a liberterian or anywhere in between, I think the important point to understand is not that the key is not our system of government (which I think is actually pretty damn excellent and amazing) but changing the minds of the people. No matter how great the system is, as long as you're going to maintain the pretense of republicanism and democracy, it is public opinion that will decide how we our governed, and ultimately is what must be changed for political change to occur. Our constitution does an excellent job of restraining the turmoil and passion of public opinion as well as providing protection to individual liberteries, but ultimately you're only going to save the world with your vision if you can get people to see it too.

[Kinbote]

Also, "scum rises to the top." No matter what system is in place, assholes will find ways to be assholes. Because that's what assholes do.

[XenonDreams]

Originally posted by UncleLester
"scum rises to the top."

i'd recommend "shit floats" as a more succinct and effective means of stating this.

[Kinbote]

That's rather vulgar, sir!

[ferret]

term limits prevent dictatorship
seeing as how
reagan would probably have been president up until today
in its most extreme case of the highest offices
notice how there are not term limits for the congress
only the presidency in the us constitution
thats for a reason

[Kinbote]

Originally posted by ferret

thats for a reason

How about enjambments?

[XenonDreams]

Originally posted by ferret

reagan would probably have been president up until today


oh man, alzheimers/dead guy, yep

[vordabois]

Originally posted by XenonDreams
oh man, alzheimers/dead guy, yep

[Drunkenmaster]

Originally posted by XenonDreams
oh man, alzheimers/dead guy, yep Actually, that may be just what we need!!

[JOEBIALEK]

good points

[theburk]

first off, we need to get rid of the president appointing anyone but his cabinate, and fix the number of senators on each side (dem repub and other) and congressmen, we need to get rid of the electoral college, and we shouldnt allow the president to appoint judges to the supreme court as this is obviously ruining checks and balances.

[revgoozen]

Originally posted by theburk
first off, we need to get rid of the president appointing anyone but his cabinate, and fix the number of senators on each side (dem repub and other) and congressmen, we need to get rid of the electoral college, and we shouldnt allow the president to appoint judges to the supreme court as this is obviously ruining checks and balances.

so what you are saying is that we need to strip the president of power and do away with democracy in congressional elections. that's an interesting idea.

[Spaced]

Does the president require congressional approval, or some other bipartisan agreement on appointees to the US supreme court? If not, then wouldn't the prospect of undue influence present itself after multiple appointments.

[vordabois]

Originally posted by Spaced
Does the president require congressional approval, or some other bipartisan agreement on appointees to the US supreme court?

Well, not necessarily bipartisan... The President nominates someone and then the Senate has to approve through a simple majority vote.

If not, then wouldn't the prospect of undue influence present itself after multiple appointments.

Yes. And this still exists, even with one or two Justices. If the Senate is majority republican, and a republican President nominates a conservative justice, that conservative influence is effectually appointed to the court.

However, they are there for life unless impeached by Congress, so it stands to reason that a President usually can only manage to appoint one or maybe two (although, sometimes none) during a normal term, and perhaps three or four in two terms. Perhaps.

The good part about it so far is that the President has generally nominated people who are fairly moderate, with the exceptions of the GOP in the last few decades nominating near-extremist people like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. There was also the rejection of that extremist rightist nominee Robert Bork. But overall, the President hasn't seemed to nominate upon party lines so much. (As a side note: However, it does really scare me that we've given a certified half-wit the power to upset this unofficial tradition of consideration.)

There are nine Justices. This number has changed throughout our history. Some presidents have strategized to add new justices so they can vote in his favor on very important issues brought before the court, though Congress doesn't seem to like that idea too much no matter what party's in power there... and they, not the President, are entrusted with the task of determining the amount of seats on the court. The President merely fills those seats.

Originally, the total number of Justices was set at six. As the country grew geographically, the number of Justices steadily increased. The court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863. In 1866, however, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which provided that the next three Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court would eventually reach seven by attrition. This law was passed by the Radical Republicans to deny Democratic President Andrew Johnson the ability to make any Supreme Court appointments. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866, and a second in 1867. In 1869, after President Johnson's retirement, the number of Justices was again set at nine (the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices), where it has remained ever since. President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court so that he could add Justices who would favor his New Deal policies; however, the plan failed in Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Composition

There are checks on the system, but this overwhelming fear millions of people are now experiencing is based on the idea that, because the GOP controls Congress and the Presidency, it could set the stage for some pretty volatile times ahead (depending on who he picks). Once they're in there, they're basically there until they die, and if he takes a side-step and nominates a crap candidate that Congress approves, there's nothing we can really do about it. We just gotta wait till they croak.