It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should the people be able to punish the elected people who abuse their power?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Execution is a bit much and not the right way to go. We should be able to remove them from office however. If they committed a crime while in office they should then also be tried and punished accordingly.




posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
Problem is, half the people won't agree no matter what.

1. You now have the right to a recall election of you can get your act together for that.

2. You can also indict a politician for crimes, which has been done many times. How many governors of Illinois are now in prison? Lots.

3. You can refuse to re-elect a person to office, effectively throwing him out.

But you want to hang them because of some trumped-up political B.S.? That's basically mob rule French Revolution style. Be my guess you wouldn't like a lynch mob coming for you.

It's an absurd, uncivilized idea and you have little support to do it. It's not going to happen.


You properly right about that, we are often to divided to agree on anything


No laws are needed, if you want to get rid of tyrrany, so yes, this is kind of absurd - and i wouldnt vote for it either

No to the french mob, and i wouldnt wish it for others. BUT i do think its interesting to discuss this, and i think there is responsibility for both the elected few, and the people, two ensure that the power dont get corrupted



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Execution is a bit much and not the right way to go. We should be able to remove them from office however. If they committed a crime while in office they should then also be tried and punished accordingly.


I agree

Some members actually had some pretty good ideas, TrueBrit and intrptr are on to something i think



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
They should be able to vote them out. There is no use in just being able to vote them in, and no one impeaches or removes a rogue one.

There should be a process to remove from office and put on trial a rogue one, if they won't impeach and if there is something done to thwart military removal, ie replacing all military heads with black women, and yet thats not a conspiracy, is it? There should be a process where people send out the alert and the swat team moves in.

Then trial if necessary, endangerment of citizens say, aiding and abetting terrorism, say!

But corporal punishment is not how I'd do it.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

I would rather strip them naked and tar and feather them. Televise it live, It would make great prime time viewing!



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Death, is a bit harsh. However, holding a person accountable for them not doing what the people elected them to do. Should cause the politician to be removed from office immediately. This removal can be done with a vote of 50% or more. Once removed from office the politician would loose their pensions. There should also be term limits to not more than 3 terms in office.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 05:12 AM
link   
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

There also might be a problem getting 50% of the voters to turn out to oust a politician.

In some cases you'd be lucky to get 50% to vote the buggers in.

It occurs to me that rather than ensure 'clean' politicians your idea might just ensure more corruption as they go to greater lengths to cover up their crimes.

The Press could probably wave 'goodbye' to what little freedom they have left, for instance.

Not trying to put a damper on a good idea, I wish more of them could be held accountable. But it's discussions like this that highlight how difficult it can be.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

How would they prove corruption? As in, who would do the investigations? If there are no investigations, it would simply be a popularity contest or virtual witch hunt, punishable by death.

And if there were investigations, if would have to be by an independent organization. Can't trust insiders to judge themselves or it would become another method of corruption (as in, vouch for me & I'll vouch for you). On the other hand, how could people with no access to classified information make completely accurate judgments? Death penalties shouldn't be left up to chance, probability, or kneejerk reactions.

I think simply allowing "no confidence" votes would be fair enough. And maybe guaranteeing there will be no immunity for any crimes committed while in office. Many offices don't have recall procedures, so adding those would help to. But killing them is too extreme.
edit on 26-11-2015 by enlightenedservant because: duh. had typed "so adding adding those" in the 2nd to last sentence. i blame ancient aliens



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

1. "How would they prove corruption? As in, who would do the investigations? If there are no investigations, it would simply be a popularity contest or virtual witch hunt, punishable by death."

2. "And if there were investigations, if would have to be by an independent organization. Can't trust insiders to judge themselves or it would become another method of corruption (as in, vouch for me & I'll vouch for you). On the other hand, how could people with no access to classified information make completely accurate judgments? Death penalties shouldn't be left up to chance, probability, or kneejerk reactions."

3. "I think simply allowing "no confidence" votes would be fair enough. And maybe guaranteeing there will be no immunity for any crimes committed while in office. Many offices don't have recall procedures, so adding those would help to. But killing them is too extreme.
"

1 How would they prove corruption?
Thats the beauty of democracy, it doesnt really matter who is "right" or "wrong", +50% of the voters, decides whats "right" or "wrong", so they wouldnt have to prove corruption, they just have to feel betrayed...
I reconize, the problems you wanna deal with in your question, but since i cant answer that, we will just have to use the system in place, democracy


So yes, it would simply be a popularity contest or virtual witch hunt, punishable by death. but aint that how everything else works, in a democracy?

2 Your right, maybe we shouldnt be allowed to vote for anything? Since none of us, really now anything about whats really going, and "our" decision affects everyone on a global scale, in a matter of life or death...

3 I agree, killing would be way to extreme, Iam against death penalty myself
But a "no confidence" vote would be nice

So, that is not why i asked the question, i did it because i think we get into some very interresting questions, like the ones above, and the ones from other posters, its always good to exercize the brain


Sorry for the late answers, just noticed your answers today - they should really improve the settings that allow you to see if people have answered your post, ...or maybe i just need to learn how it works


Peace



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: berenike
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

There also might be a problem getting 50% of the voters to turn out to oust a politician.

In some cases you'd be lucky to get 50% to vote the buggers in.

It occurs to me that rather than ensure 'clean' politicians your idea might just ensure more corruption as they go to greater lengths to cover up their crimes.

The Press could probably wave 'goodbye' to what little freedom they have left, for instance.

Not trying to put a damper on a good idea, I wish more of them could be held accountable. But it's discussions like this that highlight how difficult it can be.


Exactly!! and thats why i started it, sometimes you get lucky and some smart kid joins in with the answer

I think thats a problem with every vote, some people dont care, or dont get informed etc. Some people dont get affected by the vote, some do. Its hard to make the "right" decision

Dont know if things would be "more" or "less" corrupt, if such a law where introduced, but i really dont think it would change anything. People will always adapt to the new "rules" and evolve



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

I would rather strip them naked and tar and feather them. Televise it live, It would make great prime time viewing!


Your making me regret i got rid of my tv....



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ceeker63
Death, is a bit harsh. However, holding a person accountable for them not doing what the people elected them to do. Should cause the politician to be removed from office immediately. This removal can be done with a vote of 50% or more. Once removed from office the politician would loose their pensions. There should also be term limits to not more than 3 terms in office.


Something like that, would be great, i think we should be allowed to change our vote from day to day, so a politican could loose office from day to day, depending on how well they do, that would at least get unwanted people out, before they do to much damage




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join