Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let’s face it: the US is filled with groups that dislike each other. Since the Federal government is so large and powerful, each group views controlling the Federal government as essential in order for the group to protect itself from harm that other groups could inflict if they controlled the Federal government. Further, the Presidemcy has grown so powerful that each group views electing a President that it supports as critical.
So why not:
1. Transfer nearly all power from Washington to the states, except for a few things such as foreign policy and social and a few other programs that would simply fund gaps between what poor states can spend and what rich states can spend.
Result? Groups could continue to cluster in different states and wouldn’t have to bother each other. Liberals in Massachusetts wouldn’t have to run into conservatives from Alabama.
The Federal government would need to keep control of a bare minimum of economic and other programs that would fill gaps between what various states can spend, but their scope could be reduced and largely delegated to the states. (We’ve seen what happened in Europe, with a single currency but individual states of varying resources and without a central government to prop up poor ones, and that’s a disaster.)
2. Reduce the power of the Presidency.
I’d like to find a way to reduce the power of the President to pick Supreme Court justices, since that would help reduce fighting about the Presidency, but I don’t have a specific plan now.
The President has become nearly an elected strongman; most Western countries don’t have that, and a strong Presidency runs the risk of becoming semi-dictatorial.
3. Create a nonpartisan head of state.
This is a more “feel good” move that would help build national unity. Heads of state (the ceremonial parts of being President) doesn’t need to be a partisan job. Queen Elizabeth does a wonderful job and is beloved, but her political views are largely unknown.
I say all of this as someone who is on the center-right politically.
I doubt many, especially liberals/progressives, truly understand the concept, one. Two, many want majority democracy, either ultimately not understanding the long term affects, or simply not wanting to accept what the subtleties of a federalist system.
As to specifically what you suggest, the founders got it right. Read Federalist Papers #49 and #10 in particular. Oh, and repeal the 17th Amendment to begin restoring balance between the central and state governments.
Limit federal power? Restore the founding fathers concept of states rights? This sounds like following the constitution as it was written.
Conservatives like me have argued for this for years. We conservatives do not wish to force our values on Massachusetts or California. As far as I am concerned they can have all the socialism, gay marriage and legal drugs they want up there. It is their place to make their laws. The problem is that liberals do insist on us living the way they say we should. They would never acknowledge our right to have our own laws. After all they see us as NAZIs, they do not believe we are smart enough to make our own laws. They believe the poor, minorities and homosexuals of red state America need northern and western liberals to liberate them from the likes of us conservatives. They intend to use the federal government as a club to beat us into submission. This is why our nations problems are likely destined to be settled by civil war. If we only followed our founding fathers plans our politically and ethnically diverse naton could live happily and peacefully together in one union. It looks as if some of us are not capable of following the founders plans.
Let’s face it: the US is filled with groups that dislike each other. Since the Federal government is so large and powerful, each group views controlling the Federal government as essential in order for the group to protect itself from harm that other groups could inflict if they controlled the Federal government. Further, the Presidemcy has grown so powerful that each group views electing a President that it supports as critical.
So why not:
1. Transfer nearly all power from Washington to the states, except for a few things such as foreign policy and social and a few other programs that would simply fund gaps between what poor states can spend and what rich states can spend.
Result? Groups could continue to cluster in different states and wouldn’t have to bother each other. Liberals in Massachusetts wouldn’t have to run into conservatives from Alabama.
The Federal government would need to keep control of a bare minimum of economic and other programs that would fill gaps between what various states can spend, but their scope could be reduced and largely delegated to the states. (We’ve seen what happened in Europe, with a single currency but individual states of varying resources and without a central government to prop up poor ones, and that’s a disaster.)
2. Reduce the power of the Presidency.
I’d like to find a way to reduce the power of the President to pick Supreme Court justices, since that would help reduce fighting about the Presidency, but I don’t have a specific plan now.
The President has become nearly an elected strongman; most Western countries don’t have that, and a strong Presidency runs the risk of becoming semi-dictatorial.
3. Create a nonpartisan head of state.
This is a more “feel good” move that would help build national unity. Heads of state (the ceremonial parts of being President) doesn’t need to be a partisan job. Queen Elizabeth does a wonderful job and is beloved, but her political views are largely unknown.
I say all of this as someone who is on the center-right politically.
Thoughts?
Your post is all about "the President", and we already know you detest President Trump from your other posts -- "The Orange Menace" The reality is that the USA has a Constitution and it lays out our system of Government. Part of that is the power and duties of the President, Legislature and Judiciary .... and HOW they get elected or appointed. You clearly don't like the results of the 2016 Election and all I can say is ...... that's just too bad. Vote and keep voting. Don't whine.
Not sure what you are asking -- tear up the Constitution??
Figure out how to have a "queen" or a fake head of Government?
Every Nation has Political Parties - anyone who doesn't think that is the case is just not paying attention.
My "thought" is -- How long is this Total Hysterical Meltdown and Trump Derangement deal going to last?
How much damage to this Nation will be enough for the Trump Haters?
The first President I remember was IKE - I've liked some Presidents, disliked others but I've never seen a portion of our Country go absolutely bonkers over any President with such vitriol -- particularly a President that has brought us such a great Economic boom.
It makes absolutely zero sense -- that's exactly what is coming across to Normal People.
ZERO SENSE and really abnormal people who refuse to accept reality.
Your post is all about "the President", and we already know you detest President Trump from your other posts -- "The Orange Menace" The reality is that the USA has a Constitution and it lays out our system of Government. Part of that is the power and duties of the President, Legislature and Judiciary .... and HOW they get elected or appointed. You clearly don't like the results of the 2016 Election and all I can say is ...... that's just too bad. Vote and keep voting. Don't whine.
Not sure what you are asking -- tear up the Constitution??
Figure out how to have a "queen" or a fake head of Government?
Every Nation has Political Parties - anyone who doesn't think that is the case is just not paying attention.
My "thought" is -- How long is this Total Hysterical Meltdown and Trump Derangement deal going to last?
How much damage to this Nation will be enough for the Trump Haters?
The first President I remember was IKE - I've liked some Presidents, disliked others but I've never seen a portion of our Country go absolutely bonkers over any President with such vitriol -- particularly a President that has brought us such a great Economic boom.
It makes absolutely zero sense -- that's exactly what is coming across to Normal People.
ZERO SENSE and really abnormal people who refuse to accept reality.
I had the same concerns about Obama and his ;$&.?:& “pen and phone”.
Obama and Trump are making the Presidency into a very powerful office. Republicans have won the popular vote for the Presidency only once in the last 30 years. Don’t you get it? We face decades of Democratic Presidents, who will have very broad powers. That’s a nightmare. But even if the Presidents were Republican, a strong Presidency is NOT what most Western countries have, and a strong Presidency has been shown to lead countries towards dictatorship, so it’s bad for everyone.
At least separating out the ceremonial parts of the job and giving them to a nonpartisan person- which is how most Western countries handle those parts of the job, would help. Presidents of most Western countries are like Queen Elizabeth: an esteemed figurehead who is nonpartisan. That at least removes political fighting from one part of government, however minor.
I view it as a bunch of people in a room with a gun. If the gun wasn't there in the first place, people would probably get along much better...even with the gun there, most everyday people don't want to use it, but the control freaks like the idea of having the gun.
They notice a few others in the room are also control freaks and they'll have to fight over it, so they use their charm, fear tactics, or whatever manipulation they can think of to drag the regular people into supporting them having the gun.
Then everyone is led to believe that without them having the gun, the whole room would devolve into chaos, even though they're the ones causing most of it.
I would posit going back to the Articles of Confederation, myself--nearly ALL the power in the hands of each individual state with the federal government responsible for national defense and a very limited number of other matters.
The problem with that, in the eyes of the left, is that they could never achieve collective authoritarianism throughout the entire nation. The big-city liberals could not dictate matters in backwater "flyover country." It would cause severe rash for the left knowing that the "rednecks" and "deplorables" would actually run their own affairs the way THEY wanted to and that all those little "backward" states would just be doing their own things and would never be infected with big-city liberalism. Collective authoritarians could never tolerate such a system. They want the whole banana.
I think that the states should be given the power to deficit spend so that they can each do what they want with healthcare (and whatever else the federal government "can't afford").
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
&.?:& “pen and phone”.
