Political Theory

Re: Should the Presidency be abolished?

DrunknMunky — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 03:00:28 GMT

DBratton:
DrunknMunky:
I don't see the point in turning the country into little city-states.

That's not the objective per se. The objective is to reduce and diffuse political power. You can see the point of that surely.

Of course.

Re: Should the Presidency be abolished?

wkmac — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:15:40 GMT

Mark B.:

I have actually written a proposal that gets rid of the central executive entirely. Based on the original Articles of Confederation and structured like the Articles. The Department heads are selected by the single house Congress and report directly to the Congress, with no President, Premier, Prime Minister, Fuhrer, Il Duce or other such autocrat. There is absolutely no need whatsoever for a central executive, unless you just like tyranny.

Articles of Confederation! A man after my own heart. Sadly however, the points made to gonzofunkmusic still would apply. The Constitution has come as many worried to be a document used to create central federal powers. Even worse, it has the great public diluted into thinking that their natural rights are derived from said document, that the federal gov't can legislate those rights as to how it sees fit and even worse once it's been determined by gov't explaination of what those rights are, no other talk or ideas are consider or tolerated. The greatest of sin has been to convince the gullible public into accepting the idea that there are times for the greater good of the state that it is your duty to surrender those rights with cheerfulness in order to protect the nationstate.

I'd like to close in quoting the great mind of JonBostwick who said:

"I dont see the point in having a country."

Re: Should the Presidency be abolished?

wkmac — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:04:54 GMT

gonzofunkmusic:

Human nature & unyielding familiarity will, for quite some time, retain the political character & social roles of modern government. Without the title of "president," a new leader-- most likely the speaker of the house or senate's president pro tempore-- would fill the same ol' boots & command any bit of power that had been dropped. The current world's fairly stuck in its stubborn ways. Therefore, change must be brought about socially before any political reformation can occur.

There is an impatient part of me that wants to scream out you are wrong but reality snaps me back to my senses. Go anywhere among the masses and step out in discussion with either a republican or democrat and IMO you'll sense firsthand that you can rewrite the language of the law but in due order a new object of power they would find to elevate as their new God. As birds are conditioned to migrate to the seasons so are we conditioned for millenia to always look toward a source of central power to govern us. When Rome brought it's thought and teachings of empire and conquered our ancestors of old in northern and western Europe, the genetic seed of empire and central power were spawn upon the offspring that has laid waste upon us to this very day.

I often wonder if for only a fleeting moment that all the needed players were in place in the 1700's to bring about for the micro second of time that old world European type empire would at least to the west of England come to an end. It didn't take long before the ink was even dry on may of our greatest of documents for empire to return. The belief that England and Europe would allow us to depart in the night from what Kipling called "The Great Game" and to avoid "the New Great Game" was pure folly on our forefathers part and we continue to play it to this day.

Social change? I would call it an evolutionary change in human nature before we would see a real longterm political reformation set in away from huge power and back towards individual self determination. Until we learn to migrate toward individual ideals and self determination as a constant reaction to any environment, no amount of written paper or eloquent speech will over the longhaul make a meaningful difference. Even the so-called "small gov't" republicans are so embedded with democrat fears ie what will Hillary or Obama do if elected that they will in effect elect a Hillary/Obama clone in McCain under the illusion that being republican in name somehow makes him better. Anti Empire/Anti-War democrats react the same way under the same conditions and illusions.

IMO it's an involuntary reflex reaction of a conditioned respionse almost embedded in our genetic makeup. Until that code is broken or mutated, I see little longterm hope.

Re: Should the Presidency be abolished?

Bostwick — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 08:16:36 GMT

DrunknMunky:
I don't see the point in turning the country into little city-states.

I dont see the point in having a country.

Re: Should the Presidency be abolished?

DBratton — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:34:13 GMT

DrunknMunky:
I don't see the point in turning the country into little city-states.

That's not the objective per se. The objective is to reduce and diffuse political power. You can see the point of that surely.

Re: Should the Presidency be abolished?

Harksaw — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:25:22 GMT

I'm of the opinion that the Presidency should be broken into a number of its sub-functions. One head legislator (maybe the Senate Majority Leader) that signs or vetoes bills. One civilian head of the military. One that functions as the chief diplomat, like the Secretery of State.

Divided power would be harder to abuse.

Re: Should the Presidency be abolished?

scineram — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:50:32 GMT

DrunknMunky:
I don't see the point in turning the country into little city-states.

I do not see the point in not being libertarian.

Re: Should the Presidency be abolished?

DrunknMunky — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:57:20 GMT

I don't see the point in turning the country into little city-states.

Re: Should the Presidency be abolished?

DBratton — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:16:09 GMT

In any future constitution the power to tax and the power to spend should be held by different branches of government. The amendment process should be among the states exclusively without any federal role at all. And secession should be explicitly allowed.

Re: Should the Presidency be abolished?

Mark B. — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 08:04:41 GMT

Here is the early 1970's proposal to redraw the state lines to make 38 states, including Cascade. :)

http://www.tjc.com/38states/

Re: Should the Presidency be abolished?

Mark B. — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 07:56:35 GMT

The original Articles of Confederation can be found here:

http://www.constitution.org/cons/usa-conf.htm

Re: Should the Presidency be abolished?

Mark B. — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 07:54:51 GMT

jcl:

I haven't read the Articles, so I'm curious: assuming a standing military were to remain in place (albeit hopefully a much smaller one dedicated to actually, you know, defending the country from within), what of the President's role as Commander-in-Chief of the military? To whom would that responsibility fall and to whom would they answer?

Thanks,

Justin

In the original Articles, as well as in my modified version, ultimately the Confederate <United> States in Congress Assembled is the Commander in Chief. There is a Secretary to Congress for the Army, one for the Navy and <in my version> one for the Air Force. There would be no central Department of War or Defense. Congress would have full control of coordination between the three departments.

Under both the original Articles and my version, there would be no standing army kept up in peacetime, only a Navy and Air Force. An Army would be requisitioned from state National Guards if the need arose. A standing Army is nothing but an invitation to adventurism.

Re: Should the Presidency be abolished?

jcl — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 07:22:14 GMT

Ooh, I like this! Cascade is such a cool name for that area (I'd like to live in Oregon someday). Although, I think the midwest regions could be combined into one "country" called Tornadia or somesuch.

I recall reading an article that discussed education systems in European countries and how so many Europeans speak multiple languages. The author pointed out that having so many smaller countries with different languages all clustered together would certainly lead to their populations needing to learn additional languages. He suggested that if each of the 50 states (or 38 in this case) each had its own language, we'd know several as well.

Justin

Re: Should the Presidency be abolished?

jcl — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 07:13:41 GMT

I haven't read the Articles, so I'm curious: assuming a standing military were to remain in place (albeit hopefully a much smaller one dedicated to actually, you know, defending the country from within), what of the President's role as Commander-in-Chief of the military? To whom would that responsibility fall and to whom would they answer?

Thanks,

Justin

Re: Should the Presidency be abolished?

shazam — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:18:48 GMT

I essentially agree that the entire executive branch of the government is pretty much obsolete. The federal government seems to also be a leftover monstrosity from the Revolutionary-war era. Our country has not faced a serious threat to its national security since then, and givern that that is pretty much the only reason to having a federal government, it should be abolished as well.