• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

What Constitutional changes should result from the trumpo "presidency"?

The electoral college should go but not because of Trump.

Trump is an indictment of the American system that has created the American people.

The American system of oligarchy should be replaced with a democracy.
 
Fuckin ditto! No more EC. Why should some guy in Montana have more power than I because I live in Washington? It's outrageous.
Yeah, but it ain't leaving the Constitution (hence my pencil in note). It'd be easier for someone to get someone else on the Internet to admit being wrong than to amend the Constitution like that.
 
A new branch of government: Political investigations. Their only job is investigating politicians, those appointed by politicians and those who work for the politicians (staffers, election committees and the like), although they are not precluded from looking at those who get caught up in this net (suspected co-conspirators of someone they are allowed to investigate.)

Funding is set constitutionally at some tiny fraction of GNP. For the sake of illustration lets say it's $10 million. This is allocated by the number of people of each party elected, but this allocation is of money to be spent investigating that party, they have absolutely no say in this investigation.

House + Senate + White House = 537 seats. $10 budget = ~$18,600 per seat.

291 of these are Republican. Thus $5,412k is spent investigating Republicans, this is directed by the Democrats and Independents (but since the independents have only 2 of the 246 votes it's effectively by the Democrats.) $37k is spent investigating the independents, the remainder is spent investigating the Democrats.

This prevents the party in power from keeping itself from being investigated or sabotaging such an investigation.

The actual investigators have very high level security clearances and thus the ability to look at most classified data.
You are seriously suggesting giving such power to a bunch of unelected people that are accountable to no one?

The older you get, the more you realize... people are dumb and we keep going in circles.
 
Fuckin ditto! No more EC. Why should some guy in Montana have more power than I because I live in Washington? It's outrageous.
Yeah, but it ain't leaving the Constitution (hence my pencil in note). It'd be easier for someone to get someone else on the Internet to admit being wrong than to amend the Constitution like that.

That is the problem. Most Democrats would love to get rid of the electoral college, but since it's favored the Republicans several times, we'd never get enough states to ratify that idea. Unless something radically changes, we will never be able to change our constitution, despite the fact that parts of it are totally irrelevant in this day and age. The fact that states as huge as California have the same number of Senators as states as small as North Dakota is also nuts. What might have been a good idea in the late 1700s, isn't so these days.
 
A new branch of government: Political investigations. Their only job is investigating politicians, those appointed by politicians and those who work for the politicians (staffers, election committees and the like), although they are not precluded from looking at those who get caught up in this net (suspected co-conspirators of someone they are allowed to investigate.)

Funding is set constitutionally at some tiny fraction of GNP. For the sake of illustration lets say it's $10 million. This is allocated by the number of people of each party elected, but this allocation is of money to be spent investigating that party, they have absolutely no say in this investigation.

House + Senate + White House = 537 seats. $10 budget = ~$18,600 per seat.

291 of these are Republican. Thus $5,412k is spent investigating Republicans, this is directed by the Democrats and Independents (but since the independents have only 2 of the 246 votes it's effectively by the Democrats.) $37k is spent investigating the independents, the remainder is spent investigating the Democrats.

This prevents the party in power from keeping itself from being investigated or sabotaging such an investigation.

The actual investigators have very high level security clearances and thus the ability to look at most classified data.
You are seriously suggesting giving such power to a bunch of unelected people that are accountable to no one?

The older you get, the more you realize... people are dumb and we keep going in circles.

No--the elected politicians control it.
 
A new branch of government: Political investigations. Their only job is investigating politicians, those appointed by politicians and those who work for the politicians (staffers, election committees and the like), although they are not precluded from looking at those who get caught up in this net (suspected co-conspirators of someone they are allowed to investigate.)

Funding is set constitutionally at some tiny fraction of GNP. For the sake of illustration lets say it's $10 million. This is allocated by the number of people of each party elected, but this allocation is of money to be spent investigating that party, they have absolutely no say in this investigation.

House + Senate + White House = 537 seats. $10 budget = ~$18,600 per seat.

291 of these are Republican. Thus $5,412k is spent investigating Republicans, this is directed by the Democrats and Independents (but since the independents have only 2 of the 246 votes it's effectively by the Democrats.) $37k is spent investigating the independents, the remainder is spent investigating the Democrats.

This prevents the party in power from keeping itself from being investigated or sabotaging such an investigation.

The actual investigators have very high level security clearances and thus the ability to look at most classified data.

So kinda like a Committee for State Security. What could possibly go wrong? :rolleyes:
 
A new branch of government: Political investigations. Their only job is investigating politicians, those appointed by politicians and those who work for the politicians (staffers, election committees and the like), although they are not precluded from looking at those who get caught up in this net (suspected co-conspirators of someone they are allowed to investigate.)

Funding is set constitutionally at some tiny fraction of GNP. For the sake of illustration lets say it's $10 million. This is allocated by the number of people of each party elected, but this allocation is of money to be spent investigating that party, they have absolutely no say in this investigation.

House + Senate + White House = 537 seats. $10 budget = ~$18,600 per seat.

291 of these are Republican. Thus $5,412k is spent investigating Republicans, this is directed by the Democrats and Independents (but since the independents have only 2 of the 246 votes it's effectively by the Democrats.) $37k is spent investigating the independents, the remainder is spent investigating the Democrats.

This prevents the party in power from keeping itself from being investigated or sabotaging such an investigation.

The actual investigators have very high level security clearances and thus the ability to look at most classified data.
You are seriously suggesting giving such power to a bunch of unelected people that are accountable to no one?

The older you get, the more you realize... people are dumb and we keep going in circles.

No--the elected politicians control it.
The elected politicians will police themselves?
 
The constitution being amended anymore is pretty much a pipe dream.

So let's take it to the next level. If you could re-write it, from scratch, what would you include, what would you ditch?

1. No electoral college, it was a dumb idea from the beginning, really, and was immediately castrated right out of the gate anyway, when the individual states realized how it could benefit them.
2. Implement an instant runoff or similar election system at the national level, that all states would have to use for local elections as well.
3. Go back to having the pres and VP elected separately. I know why this was changed, and it was a dumb idea.
4. All federal elected offices have a term limit of 12 years (6 terms in the house, 2 terms in the senate, 3 terms as pres). One could theoretically serve up to 36 years combined, max. SCOTUS appointments are limited to 12 years as well.
5. A federal, non partisan committee would be required to approve state districting for all elections. Districting would be by some simple rules and would mostly be done by a simple algorithm.

What I'd LIKE to see, but would really never happen, is that each state must be assigned an even number of seats in the House. Half the seats, and one senate seat from each state, would then be appointed by lottery. It would be a completely random draft of eligible citizens. :D This would be true representative democracy. (It might suck, but we might take our civics a little more seriously if we might be called to serve.)
 
How about - all members of a president's immediate family are precluded from ever holding any Federal elected office.
 
How about - all members of a president's immediate family are precluded from ever holding any Federal elected office.

Nepotism is unfair, but this would be too. How about immediate family members can't be designated to a role by the President him/herself and with no reason or qualification given.
 
How about - all members of a president's immediate family are precluded from ever holding any Federal elected office.

I like that - how would you see it working through time...such as with the Clintons?

Well you would have to have a starting point, but if it were enacted today, it would mean Hillary and Chelsea would be ineligible for Senate or House seats or the Presidency. I suppose they could still hold a cabinet post or be part of the federal Judiciary up to the Supreme court. Same of Michelle Obama and their two kids. Jeb Bush would be out as well.

I don't really like the idea of Political dynasties - I think our nation is big enough to inject fresh talent into the political gene pool without constantly diluting with the same families over and over.
 
How about - all members of a president's immediate family are precluded from ever holding any Federal elected office.

Nepotism is unfair, but this would be too. How about immediate family members can't be designated to a role by the President him/herself and with no reason or qualification given.

Maybe just restrict it to the presidency itself then - federal office may be too broad. I see it more about keeping a fresh inflow of perspectives into our national politics.
 
No--the elected politicians control it.
The elected politicians will police themselves?

No--the point is to give each party power to investigate the misdeeds of the others.

As it stands now investigations get squashed for political reasons. By giving the other side control that's much less likely to happen.
 
I'd settle for a constitutional amendment that would revoke all appointments by a president who has been removed from office for being in the influence of a foreign power or campaign finance violations.
 
No--the point is to give each party power to investigate the misdeeds of the others.

As it stands now investigations get squashed for political reasons. By giving the other side control that's much less likely to happen.
You want the Republicans to have even more investigatory powers?!

As it stands right now they have all the power. My intent is to ensure the minority side has investigation power also.
 
Back
Top Bottom