Do we really need a president?

[Revolution9]

No. In an odd way..that is why RP should be in the Oval Office.

Rev9

 

[Carson]

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?

Maybe we don't, but it makes things easier for those that control our county.

Then again if we ever do make a move to restore law, order, and the Constitution we will need a wise leader.

 

[Origanalist]

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.

My no was in response to this.

Originally Posted by 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?

Having no State government is something I am not opposed to, but I think the starting point should be dc when talking about eliminating government.

 

[idiom]

 

[mport1]

Nope, and we don't need the federal government in general. They provide nothing of value to the population.

 

[tttppp]

My no was in response to this.



Having no State government is something I am not opposed to, but I think the starting point should be dc when talking about eliminating government.

My point is, if you want state governments, fine. If you want federal government, fine. Just don't have both federal governments and state governments and local governments.

 

[Origanalist]

My point is, if you want state governments, fine. If you want federal government, fine. Just don't have both federal governments and state governments and local governments.

Ok, explain why.

 

[Danke]

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.

Actually, the "4th estate" is supposed to be the Jury. Via nullification.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Actually, the "4th estate" is supposed to be the Jury. Via nullification.

Truth.

 

[tttppp]

Ok, explain why.

I've already explained it to some extent. In order to run anything effectively everyone needs to have a responsibility. It works best when there is one person in charge of one responsibility. What never works is having dozens of people in charge of the same responsibility. When you do that, nothing gets done. All you end up with is a bunch of debate and nobody gets anything done because nobody is ultimately in charge. Even if everyone is competent and on the same page, it still wouldn't be as effective as having just one competent person running things. Additionally, there's no motivation to get anything done, because they can simply blame each other. And that has worked for hundreds of years.

Having the combination of local, state, and federal governments creates a similar problem. In in giving area in the U.S., there are 3 groups in charge: local, state, and federal. None of them have the authority to get things done if they wanted too because their authority is split in three parts. Additionally, it has the problem where each of the governments can blame each other. On top of that, each of these governments have a legislative branch where even more people share the same responsibilty and can blame each other when things go wrong.

It would be much better to have one person in charge, even if that was Obama. In the case of Obama, his policies would fail beyond a reasonable doubt, and when he's impeached, we can take the country in the right direction.

 

[idiom]

I've already explained it to some extent. In order to run anything effectively everyone needs to have a responsibility. It works best when there is one person in charge of one responsibility. What never works is having dozens of people in charge of the same responsibility. When you do that, nothing gets done. All you end up with is a bunch of debate and nobody gets anything done because nobody is ultimately in charge. Even if everyone is competent and on the same page, it still wouldn't be as effective as having just one competent person running things. Additionally, there's no motivation to get anything done, because they can simply blame each other. And that has worked for hundreds of years.

Having the combination of local, state, and federal governments creates a similar problem. In in giving area in the U.S., there are 3 groups in charge: local, state, and federal. None of them have the authority to get things done if they wanted too because their authority is split in three parts. Additionally, it has the problem where each of the governments can blame each other. On top of that, each of these governments have a legislative branch where even more people share the same responsibilty and can blame each other when things go wrong.

It would be much better to have one person in charge, even if that was Obama. In the case of Obama, his policies would fail beyond a reasonable doubt, and when he's impeached, we can take the country in the right direction.

New Zealand has a unitary state with a single parliament. We seem to get things done pretty efficiently. Each ministry has a single elected person in charge of it, blame for failure will take down either the individual or the party pretty rapidly. There can be up to eight parties with more than 5% of the seats at any time.

The are numerous other parliamentary democracies around the globe that function magnificently. As the video above that I posted notes, there have only been 4 presidential democracies that lasted more than 30 years. They are inherently unstable.

Unless people on this forum are going to argue that the USA has hardly any corruption in its governing system at all...

 

[AGRP]

Tyranny exists at every level of government. Anything bigger than a city government is virtually uncontrollable and unnecessary. Ever seen the videos of what the keen protesters go through? And that's the city!

 

[tttppp]

New Zealand has a unitary state with a single parliament. We seem to get things done pretty efficiently. Each ministry has a single elected person in charge of it, blame for failure will take down either the individual or the party pretty rapidly. There can be up to eight parties with more than 5% of the seats at any time.

The are numerous other parliamentary democracies around the globe that function magnificently. As the video above that I posted notes, there have only been 4 presidential democracies that lasted more than 30 years. They are inherently unstable.

Unless people on this forum are going to argue that the USA has hardly any corruption in its governing system at all...

I would need more information about New Zealand to say much about that. Its almost impossible for a parliament to be as effective as one great leader.

 

[idiom]

I would need more information about New Zealand to say much about that. Its almost impossible for a parliament to be as effective as one great leader.

Churchill did pretty well.

 

[Lothario]

You can operate under whatever president, congress, or authoritative figure you'd like - just don't force me to accept your personal decisions on the issue. In return, I won't force you to accept my personal decisions either.

 

[tttppp]

Churchill did pretty well.

The system I am proposing has never been used before in government. But it has been used very well by businesses. I would take the best leaders in business over Churchill any day.

 

[idiom]

The system I am proposing has never been used before in government. But it has been used very well by businesses. I would take the best leaders in business over Churchill any day.

Having re-read your posts, I suggest you look into New Zealand's Parliament and cabinet system. Responsibility for things is very definite and very public and restricted to individuals.

Ministers resign if there is even a hint of corruption or possible conflict of interest. Speeding Tickets are pretty detrimental to political careers...

 

[erowe1]

New Zealand has a unitary state with a single parliament. We seem to get things done pretty efficiently.

When the government does things efficiently, is that good or bad?

 

[Tod]

"effective" "works best"

Aren't those arguments against?

 

[idiom]

Compared to corrupt, embezzling and wasteful?