Do we really need a president?
- Thread starter Icymudpuppy
- Start date
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
If you're a shop owner in a neighborhood run by a criminal gang, would you rather that criminal gang be wasteful or efficient with its resources?
The institutional imperative that exist in all organizations is to grow. In govt case to grow means to gain power and power for govt means more revenue, more regulation, more laws and in our case, the more power the govt has means less freedom for the countries citizens. The Congress, President, and Supreme Court will gladly distort anything they possibly can to increase their control.
The founders of this country made a grave mistake in setting up the balance of power. They for whatever reason didn't create a means to stop the organism govt from growing. Yes they provided checks and balances within the govt itself but they didn't provide a mechanism to restrain the checks and balances when they inevitably would conspire with each other to gain power.
I don't think laws should be able to pass simply with a simple majority. This means that 51% can control the other 49%, its a majority run dictatorship that will control the minority. I think any law should require at least 2/3rd majority vote in both houses before something becomes law.
There should a sunset provision in all laws where every 2 years every law enacted will come up for review. Those laws that aren't voted on and passed will be removed from the books.
A simple majority of states that believe a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional should be able to nullify any federal law.
Personal and jury nullification are other means to restrain govt. Jury nullification in my opinion should be fully implemented in all court cases where the law itself can be judged by a jury as to whether it should be fair or not. Even the Supreme Court should not be able to overturn a case where the law has been nullified by a jury. Furthermore, I as a person should able to withdraw my consent to be governed by simply refusing to pay tax or follow regulation. As long as I'm not committing a crime against someone I should be left the hell alone by govt. I would guarantee you that federal spending would be a LOT lower if people had a right to withdraw from paying taxes.
The founders of this country made a grave mistake in setting up the balance of power. They for whatever reason didn't create a means to stop the organism govt from growing. Yes they provided checks and balances within the govt itself but they didn't provide a mechanism to restrain the checks and balances when they inevitably would conspire with each other to gain power.
I don't think laws should be able to pass simply with a simple majority. This means that 51% can control the other 49%, its a majority run dictatorship that will control the minority. I think any law should require at least 2/3rd majority vote in both houses before something becomes law.
There should a sunset provision in all laws where every 2 years every law enacted will come up for review. Those laws that aren't voted on and passed will be removed from the books.
A simple majority of states that believe a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional should be able to nullify any federal law.
Personal and jury nullification are other means to restrain govt. Jury nullification in my opinion should be fully implemented in all court cases where the law itself can be judged by a jury as to whether it should be fair or not. Even the Supreme Court should not be able to overturn a case where the law has been nullified by a jury. Furthermore, I as a person should able to withdraw my consent to be governed by simply refusing to pay tax or follow regulation. As long as I'm not committing a crime against someone I should be left the hell alone by govt. I would guarantee you that federal spending would be a LOT lower if people had a right to withdraw from paying taxes.
Last edited:
Based on what you are saying, there is still not one person in charge of everything. How can you accurately divide up the respnsibilties if you do not have one person in charge to do so. The government you have described is probably an upgrade over our government, but it would not be an upgrade over one great leader.
We don't have much in the way of a constitution, so a Prime Minister who can cobble together a 51% percent majority can do whatever he or she thinks the electorate will let them get away with. The Prime Minister assigns responsibility. If there is no majority then the assignment may be used to tie the coalition together, but thats the same as operating with a divided board meddling with executive hires.
As a shop owner I am sure to hire the most effective, low cost gang.
Americans seem to go for the highest cost most ineffective gang... I am not impressed with the results personally.
Last edited:
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
Perhaps the one redeeming feature of the gang that subjugates us is its inefficiency. Or, as Will Rogers put it, "It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for."
VBRonPaulFan
Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,202
which, if you take that to its logical conclusion, means that each person should be considered by every other as a sovereign individual/state unto themselves. too many people wish to delegate away their responsibility for convenience....
How exactly does your system work? It appears as though there are still a lot of politics involved. Trying to convince people to support you to get 51% is not management, thats politics, and it doesn't work.
In business, board of directors can be divided, however they usually put the best person they know of to run the business the way the CEO sees fit. Businesses are not involved in politics on a day to day basis. The CEO does not need to gain 51% support from his managers for them to follow him. He demands people do what he says and thats all thats needed.
The executive branch can serve a purpose. The legislative branches have always been whats holding this country back. Instead of good management out of our government, all we get is politics. This all stems from the fact that the legislative branch places hundreds of people in charge of one responsibility. Thats just idiotic management.
nano1895
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 492
I was going to say no at first but after reading this thread I do realize the importance of having someone to blame because it forces accountability. Sometimes I find myself wishing that we would have just 8 years of one party rule then the other party and people would finally realize that both suck. No more blaming the other party.
Weston White
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,956
Considering that the Legislature is now in operation fulltime and has its own House (minority/majority) Leaders and Spokespersons; that Congress now passes rule-making powers onto bureaucracies to thereafter act independently; that the generals truly command the will of the U.S. Military; and the VP, Secretary of State, and CIA handles most all foreign concerns, I would say that the puppet-position of POTUS could safely be annulled.
Clearly you have never run a business of any scale. CEO's spend most of their day getting stake-holder buy-in. Well the good ones do.
PierzStyx
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2011
- Messages
- 5,225
I'm wary of giving the House to much power. Its to directly answerable to the mob. I'd much rather restore the way senators were elected in state legislatures and then give them more power, if a shift on power is necessary.
Gumba of Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Messages
- 863
Our task as defenders of liberty is to point out the fact that we don't need any gang. To argue about the attributes of the "best" gang is missing the point. The gang should not exist.
Actually I have. CEOs have to spend time convincing people about the long term direction, but they do not have to waste time on a day to day basis trying to convince people to do what he wants. He just says this what I want, now get it done.
But hey, thanks for the insult.
Last edited:
Similar threads
