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.
Actually the flaw is that the framers never ever ever foresaw that a traitor to the Country could be within at the level of the President.
Its sickening what this Trump Family has done.
Its sickening at the depths of evil the Trump republican " family" Mafioso, have declined. You can see it on their face s.
So America, the sleeping giant, and her loyal citizens will take care of them every November til the cows come home and somehow make sure this hostile takeover of America from within will never happen again.
A purge of government hiding Trump and His republicans crimes against the United States.
Some kind of Ammendment providing for such removals swiftly is needed.
What does it really matter? A title or not and who gets it really doesn't make much difference in the over all picture. All that matters is if there is a division of power and one branch doesn't become superior to the other two.
Ok, so returning to the point: The US Constitution places the role as head of state and head of government in the same person. I outlined a couple of reasons why this can be considered detrimental, provided counterexamples, and wondered if anyone had any input, perhaps a reason why it could be consedered a good thing. (Yes, it was a fine thing when Washington was around. Can we agree that what we've seen lately isn't on that level?)
So far it's been met with a hair-splitting debate on terminology and Waldokitty playing dumber than usual.
Found a list online and WTF is wrong with this country to not update and amend a document that supposedly rules the land for modern times? Even the expected life span of humans plays a role when you appoint a judge for life.
I'm sure we can come up with even more outdated and omitted stuff and much debate will surround the ones listed.
Seeing that it was written completely by white males ~ included NO women or people of color ~ one might safely assume it would be ok to update it every now and again.
I'm sure WC is only playing. Cats do that with mice sometimes before they eat them for lunch.
I doubt I'll be given that courtesy regardless what is said. BRB, play with yourself while I look for my decoder ring. It will only be a few minuets. ok, I'm ready, can you provide some context to your premise, if you have one? No point in both of us starting out lame.
Well, that's close to civil. Let's have at it - this is mostly C&P from previous posts, but:
The problem is that of making the same person head of state and head of government.
Most other modern nations separate these two - so that you have one fairly non-controversial person speaking for the country, and one speaking for the government. It hammers home the temporary nature of each administration vs. the permanence of the country, and it makes it easier to take pride in serving one's country even if you despise the current government.
In constitutional monarchies, you of course have the monarch whose credentials are impeccable. In republics like Germany, you have the president - generally an "older statesman", ie. someone who sat in parliament for ages and never offended anyone.
It's my opinion that this is a better arrangement. A Brit can feel deep-rooted loyalty to his/her country and the person identified with the country is Her Majesty. And at the same time consider Theresa May a complete nincompoop. There is no need to call on "respect for the office" - those who agree with May can like her, those who despise her can say so, and still full like full-blooded loyalists to the country.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,358,694 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40
The electoral college will NEVER be scrapped.
You would need 38 states to ratify getting rid of it, and in doing so, they would be reducing their own influence. Get used to it -- we are not running the country from CA, IL, NY and a few other states. Your democratic candidates are going to have to win at least some of "flyover" country if you want to win the presidency. Obama did it twice. Hillary failed. 2020 candidate? We'll see.
As it is the EC would allow 11 states to elect a POTUS. WHY wouldn't the other 39 states vote to eliminate it and their voters' votes to actually count for something?
How about they control their state and let other states run themselves, as intended?
The existence of the FDA and the DEA kind of goes against that intent. The federal government has a lot of power still, don't act like it doesn't.
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.
ok, I'm ready, can you provide some context to your premise, if you have one? No point in both of us starting out lame.
