If I were running for POTUS...

[Paul Dixon]

Mel,
not like Hitler at all.
In effect, it's the exact opposite of what Hitler did.
Under Hitler a multi-party democracy (6-10 parties?) became a single party state with Hitler as leader holding most of the power and being a virtual dictator. All power became more concentrated, first in single party and then a single person.

The current US system isn't quite as extreme as Hitler's but it has only 2 parties so it's not far from it.

My platform for POTUS would, in effect, force there to be 535 political "parties" as each member of Congress would be elected on his own individual policies as voted on by his own constituents. He would no longer need to accept the entire party line being imposed on him to get elected and could therefore represent a much wider range of political views.

It would put an end to the undemocratic concentration of power in the hands of a few high ranking political party members, both Democrat and Republican, whose motives are not necessarily clear, and would hand that power back to the people.

The usual argument against lots of parties is that it tends to lead to indecisive government as it takes time to form a concensus but the current system has shown itself to be just as indecisive because it tends to result is 2 blocks with each opposing everything the other suggests just because the opposing party want it. There is no room for any concensus or middle ground.

Remove the 2 party blocks and the people will be able to choose form a whole landscape of political opinions instead of 2 points on the political line.


Paul.

[Michael Mattias]

>. Make it illegal to bribe congress

It's already illegal. in fact I think attempting to bribe an MC is illegal, too.

But I don't think they should be.

However, I'd be in favor of public execution for any member of Congress convicted of accepting a bribe.

MCM

[David Roberts]

I am quite taken with Paul's first post.

However, not wholeheartedly.

I would ban left wing political parties.

There is no place for a mechanistic approach to an environment which is organic down to its cotton socks.

Government figures show almost half the working population of England have only primary school maths skills.

from here.

and would hand that power back to the people.

A nightmare in the making if ever I saw one.

[Chris Holbrook]

Originally Posted by Paul Dixon

The current US system isn't quite as extreme as Hitler's but it has only 2 parties so it's not far from it.

Paul, that's an uncharacteristically inumerate view.

[Eric Pearson]

Mel --

> Decisions made by the supreme court can be over turned
> by a 2/3 majority of both the house and senate.

The Supreme Court is (currently) the final word on whether or not a law is Constitutional. If a law is deemed to be unconstitutional, either 1) the law must be changed or 2) the Constitution must be amended to allow the law. So if your proposal was adopted, it would give Congesss the equivalent of being able to amend the Constitution. "We don't care if this law has been ruled unconstitutional, we want it anyway."

Right now it takes 2/3 of Congress to begin the process of amending the Constitition. After that 3/4 of the states must vote to ratify an amendment. Your proposal would allow 2/3 of Congress to act without a vote of the people. I would have figured that you were a "States Rights" kind of guy, and this would take away a massive amount of power from the states and give it to Congress.

Are you sure you thought this through?

-- Eric

[Mel Bishop]

Originally Posted by Eric Pearson

...you were a "States Rights" kind of guy...

I am, big time. Those powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, are delegated to the states.

[Eric Pearson]

Mel --

Help me out here. "States rights" means that the individual states retain all....

> Those powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution,

Right?

So if you give 2/3 of Congress the effective ability to change the Constitution -- to override it -- without the consent of the states, aren't you giving away the farm? States would have only the rights that Congress voted to give them.

If a state complained that a right had been taken away by Congress unconstitutionally, where would they complain? They couldn't appeal to the Supreme Court because 2/3 of Congress could simply override them.

Who exactly would decide which powers are enumerated by the Constitution?

[Mel Bishop]

Help me out here. "States rights" means that the individual states retain all....
> Those powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution,

Go to the head of the class, Eric. That is exactly right.

As to the rest of your query: It takes a super majority of congress to amend the Constitution. Then it has to go to each state (checks-n-balances) for individual state ratification. I think it's two-thirds of the states but it might three-quarters for the Constitutional Amendment to take effect. POTUS doesn't have to sign off on it and the supreme court isn't even involved.

Now if you think the individual states are going to give up their rights,.... Somehow I don't think so.

Added: Would you like to amend the Constitution? Here's an instruction manual on how.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscons...constamend.htm

[Eric Pearson]

Sorry I'm not making myself clear.

1) Right now, as I said, it takes 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to change the Constitution.

2) Your first post says that you want to give 2/3 of Congress alone the power to override the Supreme Court if they disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Without the approval of the states. Two-thirds of Congress alone would decide whether or not a law that it -- Congress -- passed was constitutional or not.

How is that not hurting states rights? Congress could then pass a law that was blatantly unconstitutional, and there would be nothing that anybody -- the Supreme Court or the states -- could do about it because Congress itself would be the final arbiter.

-- Eric

[Mel Bishop]

Amending the Constitution and interpreting it are two horses of a different color.

It's the 'interpreting' that bothers me. Laws should be written in plain English ( here in the states, anyway) so no interpretation is necessary.

It's just like the 2nd amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Now that is a plain English statement. No interpretation necessary or needed. Yet, somehow, congress and the supreme court decided interpretation was necessary.

> Congress could then pass a law that was blatantly unconstitutional..

As if they haven't already?

[Michael Mattias]

>> Congress could then pass a law that was blatantly unconstitutional..
>As if they haven't already?

Yes, they have. And what happened? The Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional.

I think that's how it's supposed to work.

The most recent one I can recall was the Federal law making it a crime to possess a firearm within 500 ft of a school. So that's no longer a FEDERAL crime... but that could be criminalized by a STATE law, if allowed by that state's constitution.

MCM

[Eric Pearson]

I'm just not getting through. Over and out.

[Brad D Byrne]

Eric ... hehe ... it's hard to talk math to religion

[John Petty]

Interesting thread for an outsider
Why is it I suspect your point #1 actually means accepting your understanding and interpretation of what the word means. There is much history to support the seperation of church and state. Start with the Crusades, The original emigrants to America had that as a major incentive, follow that up in modern times with catholic v protestants in Ireland, Sunni v Shia and other factions in the in the middle east and not to forget judaism v all listed. Add to that 1/3 of the worlds population know little or nothing about any of the religions I have mentioned
As I said I am an outsider so can't comment on your domestic issues, tax EPA or even gun laws the rest of the world doesn't care if you want kill each other.
The rest of your platform is historically typical of a decaying empire but continue to alienate the reducing number of American allies while increasing world tensions.

[Mel Bishop]

...I am an outsider so can't comment on your domestic issues...

Why not, John. You think what happens here in the colonies doesn't effect other countries to one extent or another?

I would welcome your opinions just as gladly as I would any other.