Do we really need a president?

[Icymudpuppy]

We haven't had a congressional declaration of war since 1941. All wars since the peace treaty was signed with Japan in 1945 have been illegally waged by an unaccountable executive with too much presidential power.

Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama have all either started or escalated an illegal war. They are all war criminals and constitution violators. Not to mention that all the agencies we love to hate, EPA, DEA, etc are executive branch departments.

Given the propensity of abuse of power by the executive branch, and the general failure to make any effort to use the veto to check the other branches perhaps the abolition of the office of president is in order.

Perhaps the president could be Replaced with a 53 member executive council 1 for each state and territory that requires a super majority (2/3rds) consent on every action. The executive council could be made up of the governors, and we could thus do away with federal military altogether and make each state's Guard activated only if the super majority decided for a military action AND that governor was one of the consenting votes.

Thoughts, Discussion?

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Yeah, we do. We just either need one that knows his limits, or a Congress that will enforce the limits.

 

[king_nothing_]

Given the propensity of abuse of power by the executive branch, and the general failure to make any effort to use the veto to check the other branches perhaps the abolition of the office of president is in order.

Perhaps the president could be Replaced with [...]

"No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: 'But what would you replace it with?' When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?" - Thomas Sowell

 

[TheGrinch]

The system is ideally set up for the branches to be checks and balances for eachother. Also the press was originally intended to be a "4th-estate" as a check and balance as well.

Now it's certainly debateable whether these can once again be checks-and-balances, and not just a corrupt relationships, but I'm not sure that abolishing the presidency would do anything but jsut shift the power and corruption in the other branches. In fact, it could only make Senate and House majorities even more dangerous as they are when they have a president from the same party, rather than the other. At least with opposing congress and presidents, you at least see an appearance of dissension.

In short, I think corruption is the problem, not necessarily the positions.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

A good start would be to just strip the presidency of most legal powers and give them to the legislature(the House, in particular).

 

[erowe1]

Do we really need the federal government?

Let's leave aside arguments about anarchism. Do those who believe in the state see any role for that particular one, the regime in DC? Is there anything it does that's actually good and that couldn't be done by the states?

 

[Icymudpuppy]

The thing that really spurred this thought was the movie I watched last night. Amistad. The show portrays John Quincy Adams, arguably the last of the Founder generation arguing for freedom in the face of what had already become only 50 years after the constitution was ratified, a corrupt system in which the corrupt executive more interested in re-election than truth wielded direct control over the courts.

 

[James Madison]

No. The anti-federalists were right again.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

Do we really need the federal government?

Let's leave aside arguments about anarchism. Do those who believe in the state see any role for that particular one, the regime in DC? Is there anything it does that's actually good and that couldn't be done by the states?

Excellent point. I see my idea as being a first step towards dismantling the federal juggernaut. Just like medical marijuana is a first step in ending the drug war. I know there are a lot of All or Nothing folks on this board, but slow and steady wins the race, I've heard.

 

[torchbearer]

no, we don't need a federal government at all.

 

[tttppp]

We haven't had a congressional declaration of war since 1941. All wars since the peace treaty was signed with Japan in 1945 have been illegally waged by an unaccountable executive with too much presidential power.

Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama have all either started or escalated an illegal war. They are all war criminals and constitution violators. Not to mention that all the agencies we love to hate, EPA, DEA, etc are executive branch departments.

Given the propensity of abuse of power by the executive branch, and the general failure to make any effort to use the veto to check the other branches perhaps the abolition of the office of president is in order.

Perhaps the president could be Replaced with a 53 member executive council 1 for each state and territory that requires a super majority (2/3rds) consent on every action. The executive council could be made up of the governors, and we could thus do away with federal military altogether and make each state's Guard activated only if the super majority decided for a military action AND that governor was one of the consenting votes.

Thoughts, Discussion?

Terrible idea. Eliminate congress and state and local powers and hold one person accountable. Thats the correct way to manage anything. One person responsible for one responsibility. That way, if things fuck up, everyone will have no doubt who to blame.

Right now we have a congress with hundreds of members responsible for the same thing. If things fuck up, all they have to do is blame it on everyone else. Additionally, there are layers of state and local government, which creates more of this problem. Nobody is accountable because government officials can just blame each other, or blame the system as a whole, which nobody ever considers fixing.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

no, we don't need a federal government at all.

Thread winner.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Terrible idea. Eliminate congress and state and local powers and hold one person accountable. Thats the correct way to manage anything. One person responsible for one responsibility. That way, if things fuck up, everyone will have no doubt who to blame.

Right now we have a congress with hundreds of members responsible for the same thing. If things fuck up, all they have to do is blame it on everyone else. Additionally, there are layers of state and local government, which creates more of this problem. Nobody is accountable because government officials can just blame each other, or blame the system as a whole, which nobody ever considers fixing.

Ah, you agree with Hoppe that a King is preferable to a president/congress. Good man!

 

[tttppp]

Ah, you agree with Hoppe that a King is preferable to a president/congress. Good man!

Thats true, but I was not suggesting a king. I was suggesting more like a CEO, where he would be responsible for everything but would still be held accountable by another entity, kind of like how most CEOs are held in check by the board of directors. In business, if a CEO lies to the board, he gets fired. In our government, if the president makes complete lies, not only does he not get impeached, he gets re-elected by making up more bullshit.

 

[torchbearer]

Thats true, but I was not suggesting a king. I was suggesting more like a CEO, where he would be responsible for everything but would still be held accountable by another entity, kind of like how most CEOs are held in check by the board of directors. In business, if a CEO lies to the board, he gets fired. In our government, if the president makes complete lies, not only does he not get impeached, he gets re-elected by making up more bullshit.

one tyrant is preferable to many.

 

[Origanalist]

Do we really need the federal government?

Let's leave aside arguments about anarchism. Do those who believe in the state see any role for that particular one, the regime in DC? Is there anything it does that's actually good and that couldn't be done by the states?

No, central authority always leads to corruption. The more local the process gets the more power people have over their lives.

 

[torchbearer]

No, central authority always leads to corruption. The more local the process gets the more power people have over their lives.

I know where my mayor lives, i know his family. i can get my hands around his throat.

 

[tttppp]

one tyrant is preferable to many.

When there is only one tyrant, people know who to blame, and the tyrant is forced to start doing what he is supposed to.

 

[torchbearer]

When there is only one tyrant, people know who to blame, and the tyrant is forced to start doing what he is supposed to.

one bullet. regicide.

 

[tttppp]

No, central authority always leads to corruption. The more local the process gets the more power people have over their lives.

If you would rather have just local governments and no state and fed governments, thats fine. But having local governments AND state and federal governments creates overlapping responsibilities where nobody is in charge.