The Fallacy of a Return to the Constitution

In disapproval of the current state of affairs, there are various retreats people will follow. My goal here is to refute one of these retreats and force people to start thinking of logic backed solutions. A retreat that I often see is one of "going back to the Constitution". The idea here being that government has strayed from the Constitution and the only thing needed to rectify the state of affairs is to get government back on the path of the Constitution. However, this is a very flawed idea, and I will now go into why.

Before I go into its troubles, I will say that the Constitution has many merits and was quite opportune. In absence of the Constitution, there would have continued to be a confederacy which amounted to a weak union. The federalist papers go into, at length, the problems with a weak union. A weaker union would have made for a less stable America, and less stable environments tend to hinder progress.

From a broad view, the measure of the effectiveness of a system can be taken by measuring the results of that system. In this case, if the current state of affairs, (the results of the implementation of the Constitution), are unfavorable, then why would anyone think that resetting the system would lead to some different outcome? However, this is certainly not enough to satisfy some, so I will go into detail about the Constitution of the United States.

There are a couple cases where things can go awry in the US Constitutional government. For one, government can choose not to follow the Constitution. Even if those in government were composed of all upstanding people who would do nothing contrary to the word of the Constitution, the words of the Constitution allow interpretation that can stray from the intent of the writers. And, when the words are interpreted in either, cases where the writers did not envision the situation, or in cases where the writers did not intend the situation, unintended powers for the federal government can be justified by the word of the Constitution. And, additionally, the lack of a granted power is not a restriction of power.

Based on the words of the Constitution, what limits are there to the powers of the federal government? Well, there are the limitations in article 1, section 9. Then there is the bill of rights. And, in the bill of rights, there is the line "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ". However, this is one of those lines that Jay, Hamilton, and Madison probably would have argued needn't be there and was there primarily for the comfort of those who feared the federal government would take powers not prescribed for it. For example, in the Federalist Papers:

"Suppose, by some
forced constructions of its authority (which, indeed, cannot easily be
imagined), the Federal legislature should attempt to vary the law of des-
cent in any State, would it not be evident that, in making such an at-
tempt, it had exceeded its jurisdiction, and infringed upon that of the
State?" - IE, hard to imagine the federal government making inheretance tax laws.

"would it not be equally evident that this was an inva-
sion of that concurrent jurisdiction in respect to this species of tax [in regards to land tax], which
its Constitution plainly supposes to exist in the State governments? If
there ever should be a doubt on this head, the credit of it will be entirely
due to those reasoners who, in the imprudent zeal of their animosity to
the plan of the convention, have labored to envelop it in a cloud calcu-
lated to obscure the plainest and simplest truths.
"


Indeed, it was interpreted prior to the bill of rights with that Amendment 10 limitation clause that the federal government's powers were indeed limited in justification to those prescribed by the Constitution, and those not prescribed by the Constitution were state affairs. Even with this amendment, however, there is still nothing explicitly stating that the federal government should not engage in actions which are not prescribed by or prohibited in the Constitution. In other words, it is not a breach of the Constitution for the federal government to form new powers; Instead, these additional powers are simply unsupported by the Constitution. What does it mean to be unsupported by the Constitution? It means that the state, the theoretical party to the Constitution, does not need to bow to the additional powers. However, if a state abides by the new powers of the federal government, then these new powers of the federal government are as effective as the powers given by the Constitution and the remedies the people have are either to move to a different state or to attempt to get their current state to stop bowing to the new powers of the federal government.

On a side note, in the bill of rights Amendment 1, where it states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.", this is prohibiting congress, not the states. The other ammendments not specifically stating their application is towards congress are towards both congress and the states, but, in this case, the state has the power to make laws respecting the establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof, etc.

What method might the federal government employ to gain new powers? One method would be the creation of various overstepping laws. This leads to the question, is congress restricted in what laws they can make? There is the "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." statement, the Bill of Rights, and the "but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators." statement; but, the most significant restriction that appeared to me was in this: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

[continued]

The sentence seems to be noting with "which" that the laws of the United States shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution - a sort of restriction limiting congress to only make laws which are in pursuance to the Constitution. However, this can also be interpreted such that it is not a restriction, but rather, by the fact a law was passed, it is consequently in pursuance to the Constitution; ie, any law congress makes is in pursuance to the Constitution. Then, there is a third interpretation seemingly provided by Hamilton with "It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE Constitution". In other words, only the laws that congress passes which are in pursuance to the Constitution will be supreme law of the land. Another interpretation would be that the laws congress passes which are Of the United States are supreme; in contrast to laws of the District or laws of Lolipop land that congress might make. These last two interpretations do not limit congress to making laws that are in pursuance to the Constitution. As such, congress can go about making laws about what to wear and eat if they wanted.

Madison and Hamilton both argue regarding this topic that the states and the people will check the power of the federal government, Madison goes so far as to introduce the concept that the states, in protection of their own power, would inform the people and the people would then elect different federal level representatives. Well, that might work when you have a mindful and territorial state government, an informed people, and correctly functioning vote tabulators.

There is another part to the sentence in the Constitution mentioned in the above paragraph that peaked my interest: "and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land". What does it mean that treaties made under the authority of the US shall be supreme law of the land? The Constitution does not even attempt to define limits for what can be included in treaties. To define limitations would undermine the sovereignty that appears to be necessary when making treaties. As such, I will consider the meaning to be simply that the treaty was made by the method prescribed in the Constitution.

It would seem the easiest way to subvert the US Government would be through a treaty.

"Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy"
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business;"
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

So, essentially, there can be a secret meeting of senators, presumably constituting a quorum, and the president where the president and at least 2/3 of the senators agree on some treaty which wholly corrupts the system. Further, treaties do not need to be made public; which means if this ever did happen, the citizenry never need be made aware of it.

Then, there is the idea that where the ends are given, the means are justified. That is, since the federal government is authorized "To establish Post Offices and post Roads", it is assumed that the means for setting up these Post Offices are also authorized. Combining this idea with some indeterminate part of the Constitution, like "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes", and you will have the federal government exercising quite extravagant means for quite mundane ends. There is no explicit redress to these encroachments. So, you have a state of affairs where the power of the State would not increase, apart from by amending the constitution, and the power of the Federal Government would likely do nothing but increase. And, as the power of the federal government increased, the power to coerce and/or persuade states would also increase.

[continued]

Another aspect comes from the Federalist Papers:

"At the expiration of twenty-
five years, according to the computed rate of increase, the number of rep-
resentatives will amount to two hundred, and of fifty years, to four hun-
dred. This is a number which, I presume, will put an end to all fears
arising from the smallness of the body.
"


The idea here being that the number of representatives to the number of representees would stay roughly the same ratio, and this ratio was 30,000/1. The reason behind this proportionality was the idea that power corrupts, the idea that the more people a representative represents, the more powerful that representative is, and the idea that by limiting the amount of people a representative represents, the less likely that representative will be corrupted by power. However, it does not appear the writers of the Constitution or of the Federalist Papers envisioned a country with 300 million people, or a county of 300 million people represented at a ratio of roughly 1 to 680,000. And, even if the ratio were kept and there were ~13k representatives, there would be problems stemming from the size of this body of representatives.

There are plenty of other aspects I could go into, but it doesn't serve to batter the Constitution when my purpose is only to show it is imperfect and a poor retreat path for those who would claim the federal government was too large. The Constitution relies on the scruples of the men it causes to be employed and the impotency of forces that might subvert it. It does both of these to a lesser extent than many other governments, but, still, it appears insufficient in dealing with the subversion factors of the present.

I don't see how anyone can "go back to the constitution". It simply needs to utilized.


"Then, there is a third interpretation seemingly provided by Hamilton with "It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE Constitution". In other words, only the laws that congress passes which are in pursuance to the Constitution will be supreme law of the land. Another interpretation would be that the laws congress passes which are Of the United States are supreme; in contrast to laws of the District or laws of Lolipop land that congress might make. These last two interpretations do not limit congress to making laws that are in pursuance to the Constitution. As such, congress can go about making laws about what to wear and eat if they wanted."

Not true. Only Constitutional laws become the law of the land. These other fake psuedo laws indeed have effect, but it is the job of the supreme court to test their constitutionality. But they cannot do it on their own. Some one or some group must bring suit.

Just because the congress or even some state senate passes some arbitrary law doesn't somehow metaphysically "mean" that they passed any law "pursuant to the constitution". If they pass unconstitutional laws that go unchallenged, then they have basically cheated to tried to cheat the system somehow haven't they?

This is not somehow the constitution's fault. It is their foul actions. It is the fault of foul people.
GO AFTER THE PEOPLE. It is the proper mental object here.

This redherring/strawman bs is just that. It seems apparent that those who keep attacking the constitution instead of the persons who are trying to negate or circumvent it are really confused about what the problem/issue is.

"Oh gee... those folks are passing unconstitutional laws, so we must change the constitution."

That should only sound right to a buffoon.

Why not make a new Constitution based on the one we got? The Constitution wasn't based on thin air, and we didn't live in anarchy before it.

I do think the laws we live by need to be updated and slimmed down. I would be against it if it was suggested that a new one limit our rights more than they have been lately, which is what would probably happen.

Originally posted by akalepos
I don't see how anyone can "go back to the constitution". It simply needs to utilized.

"Going back" is just a way of saying getting the fed government back to the smallness prescribed in the Constitution.

Ahhh man, what an amazing thread... S&F's all over it!

I am currently coming to a close in my readings of 'Alexander Hamilton' - Ron Chernow, and am currently researching all aspects of the revolution, and the constitution. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about James Madison, but in due time.

I am yet to read the entirety of the post, and I will return with my thoughts and opinions very soon... probably tomorrow. I was thinking of writing a very similar thread, you beat me to the punch!

in the great word of the terminator
I'll be back!

Originally posted by satron
Why not make a new Constitution based on the one we got? The Constitution wasn't based on thin air, and we didn't live in anarchy before it.

I do think the laws we live by need to be updated and slimmed down. I would be against it if it was suggested that a new one limit our rights more than they have been lately, which is what would probably happen.

edit on 21-4-2012 by satron because: (no reason given)

I'd say you have the right idea. And, certainly, the issue is determining the content of a new constitution. Just as the current constitution used principles known during the time of its writing, we can use principles that are known today. However, having seen the intellectual landscape of current books on society and government, the outcome of a new constitution would probably be grim.

Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
Ahhh man, what an amazing thread... S&F's all over it!

I am currently coming to a close in my readings of 'Alexander Hamilton' - Ron Chernow, and am currently researching all aspects of the revolution, and the constitution. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about James Madison, but in due time.

I am yet to read the entirety of the post, and I will return with my thoughts and opinions very soon... probably tomorrow. I was thinking of writing a very similar thread, you beat me to the punch!

in the great word of the terminator
I'll be back!

Excellent. I hope we can have a meaningful discussion on the topic.

reply to post by capob


You don't want idiots writing it, and on the other hand, you want people you can trust that won't wind up buggering you over.

I know I wouldn't want the people that wrote out my car's warranty in on it, or else it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. It's a start.

Originally posted by akalepos
I don't see how anyone can "go back to the constitution". It simply needs to utilized.


"Then, there is a third interpretation seemingly provided by Hamilton with "It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE Constitution". In other words, only the laws that congress passes which are in pursuance to the Constitution will be supreme law of the land. Another interpretation would be that the laws congress passes which are Of the United States are supreme; in contrast to laws of the District or laws of Lolipop land that congress might make. These last two interpretations do not limit congress to making laws that are in pursuance to the Constitution. As such, congress can go about making laws about what to wear and eat if they wanted."

Not true. Only Constitutional laws become the law of the land. These other fake psuedo laws indeed have effect, but it is the job of the supreme court to test their constitutionality. But they cannot do it on their own. Some one or some group must bring suit.

Just because the congress or even some state senate passes some arbitrary law doesn't somehow metaphysically "mean" that they passed any law "pursuant to the constitution". If they pass unconstitutional laws that go unchallenged, then they have basically cheated to tried to cheat the system somehow haven't they?

This is not somehow the constitution's fault. It is their foul actions. It is the fault of foul people.
GO AFTER THE PEOPLE. It is the proper mental object here.

This redherring/strawman bs is just that. It seems apparent that those who keep attacking the constitution instead of the persons who are trying to negate or circumvent it are really confused about what the problem/issue is.

"Oh gee... those folks are passing unconstitutional laws, so we must change the constitution."

That should only sound right to a buffoon.

edit on 21-4-2012 by akalepos because: (no reason given)

Holy smokes, if you are going to alter a post that much, please just add a new one instead of editing.

"Not true. Only Constitutional laws become the law of the land. "
How is this not true? Did you understand what I said?

"These other fake psuedo laws indeed have effect"
Not necessarily. For one, there are the laws which specifically apply to DoC. Then there are "fake psuedo laws" that claim jurisdiction over more than DoC, but which don't have jurisdiction until states relinquish it.

" but it is the job of the supreme court to test their constitutionality."
Please show me where in the constitution it says that the supreme courts job is to test the constitutionality of laws. To my knowledge, all it says is that they have jurisdiction over such laws.

"Just because the congress or even some state senate passes some arbitrary law doesn't somehow metaphysically "mean" that they passed any law "pursuant to the constitution""
Did I say this? No, I said that there were multiple possible interpretations; and that isn't even the interpretation I went with.

The rest of your post is as much folly as the previous parts, so I will ignore the rest and dismiss you as you have dismissed me.

Originally posted by satron
reply to post by capob

 

You don't want idiots writing it, and on the other hand, you want people you can trust that won't wind up buggering you over.

I know I wouldn't want the people that wrote out my car's warranty in on it, or else it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. It's a start.

Indeed, certainly don't want idiots writing it. The idea is to identify the principles that make a good government and ingrain them in any document establishing such. And, if we can all agree on the principles, it needn't be hard for anyone to write or to verify the document which established the government.

You state:

And, additionally, the lack of a granted power is not a restriction of power.

Article I Section 9 plainly states the limits of the Federal government as Section 10 does for the states. Clearly, there would be no need for a Constitution were the Federal government intended to have unlimited powers.

If the true test is a history of performance where have the greatest failings of our Federal government come from? Some would argue that unconstitutional acts such as the Income tax, Federal Reserve Act, Social Security Act, PATRIOT Act and various undeclared wars have been the very things most detrimental to our Nation.

It's true that there is room for interpretation opening the floodgates to powers not prescribed as well as those who do not wish to follow the spirit of the law, for indeed the Constitution is the law of the land before all other.
When a Federal government clearly does not follow the Constitution they are operating illegally and articles of impeachment are ponderously slow to introduce and follow to conclusion. When most of Congress is operating in this method they have created a club where they protect each other and act towards their personal advantage.

Respect for the law must begin in Congress or the people will have no reason to obey laws created and enacted by such a group.
They are supposed to be our leaders -not our overlords.
Their disrespect for the law begins with willfully defying the Constitution by adding new powers to itself which are not set forth in Section 1, Article 9.

Hamilton and the Federalists were the backers of the First Bank of the United States which sought to ensnare the US through inflationary cycles and indebtedness. The economic blight produced a storm of protest throughout the country which led to it's ending.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
You state:

And, additionally, the lack of a granted power is not a restriction of power.

Article I Section 9 plainly states the limits of the Federal government as Section 10 does for the states. Clearly, there would be no need for a Constitution were the Federal government intended to have unlimited powers.

If the true test is a history of performance where have the greatest failings of our Federal government come from? Some would argue that unconstitutional acts such as the Income tax, Federal Reserve Act, Social Security Act, PATRIOT Act and various undeclared wars have been the very things most detrimental to our Nation.

It's true that there is room for interpretation opening the floodgates to powers not prescribed as well as those who do not wish to follow the spirit of the law, for indeed the Constitution is the law of the land before all other.
When a Federal government clearly does not follow the Constitution they are operating illegally and articles of impeachment are ponderously slow to introduce and follow to conclusion. When most of Congress is operating in this method they have created a club where they protect each other and act towards their personal advantage.

Respect for the law must begin in Congress or the people will have no reason to obey laws created and enacted by such a group.
They are supposed to be our leaders -not our overlords.
Their disrespect for the law begins with willfully defying the Constitution by adding new powers to itself which are not set forth in Section 1, Article 9.

Hamilton and the Federalists were the backers of the First Bank of the United States which sought to ensnare the US through inflationary cycles and indebtedness. The economic blight produced a storm of protest throughout the country which led to it's ending.

edit on 21-4-2012 by Asktheanimals because: added comment

"It's true that there is room for interpretation opening the floodgates to powers not prescribed as well as those who do not wish to follow the spirit of the law"
"impeachment are ponderously slow to introduce and follow to conclusion. When most of Congress is operating in this method they have created a club where they protect each other and act towards their personal advantage."

I very much agree with those parts.

"Article I Section 9 plainly states the limits of the Federal government"
It states limits, but, I would disagree on a semantic level in that it doesn't state "the limits". That is to say, in outlining something (defining it's limits), you can fail to draw a complete outline and thus fail to draw "the limits" or the complete limits. Separately, I don't know why you brought this up since I mentioned this section in my article -> "Well, there are the limitations in article 1, section 9."

"Clearly, there would be no need for a Constitution were the Federal government intended to have unlimited powers."
It is clear from the federalist papers that an unlimited federal government does not appear to be the intent. However, failure to strictly limit that which fed gov can do combined with states' inaction regarding an infringing fed gov leads to expansion.

"They are supposed to be our leaders -not our overlords."
I would disagree with the implications of this statement. I would say, they are supposed to be our representatives, not our leaders. We should all have our own logic and ideas about things, and those logics and ideas should be represented. But, I do agree with the sentiment.

"willfully defying the Constitution"
I wouldn't say defying the constitution. Maybe defying the spirit of the constitution, but like I say in the article, the fed gov can pass whatever laws it wants, just some of them will not be backed by the constitution, and it is up to the states not to enforce those laws.

What do you think we might do to correct some of the problems we've see with our current constitution?

Originally posted by capob
However, failure to strictly limit that which fed gov can do combined with states' inaction regarding an infringing fed gov leads to expansion.

Which is why it's nonsense to start from the fed and work your way down. All legislation should start from the bottom and work its way up. Get involved in your local economic/political dealings.

The sole purpose of the U.S. Constitution is a general statement of the Nullification doctrine. I believe returning to the Constitution means the application of Nullification through local governance rather than expecting someone from Washington to care what you think.

However, as an anarcho-capitalism advocate, I would nullify everything.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
You state:

Hamilton and the Federalists were the backers of the First Bank of the United States which sought to ensnare the US through inflationary cycles and indebtedness. The economic blight produced a storm of protest throughout the country which led to it's ending.

edit on 21-4-2012 by Asktheanimals because: added comment

What the ___(insert word(s) here)___?

You have got to be kidding me. This is truly not an informed hypothesis, especially if you are to actually read anything in regards to Hamilton's banking initiatives. But hey, you might also be under the assumption that Hamilton also backdoored some Torry's into banking, as he was notorious for defending them.

You can make that exact same statement(ignorantly) towards any person who is to start a bank! It was even a fight to allow the notion of a bank to be established, and many refuted the very idea of one. Granted it failed... Jefferson and Madison sure were convincing... and Jeffersonian's as conspiratorial as they were, often suggest that Hamilton was in fact a loyalist.

1. There was no plan at the time to truly address economy.
2. AMERICA HAD THE WORST CREDIT... ever!
3. With out a plan, even if it failed... the US would have been stagnant! and... dare I say... fell apart?!

What, because Hamilton's bank benefited the commercial North, which was heavily dependent on actual labor, and not slave labor? Well, that's kinda a tricky subject, for they were both dependent on one another. I still think the north could have done with out.
Because it went against congress' ability to regulate weights and measures of coined money?
-ummm... i hope that truly doesn't need to be addressed. Congress and regulation... hmmm. Government and Economics... hmmm.
You actually think that Hamilton wanted to enslave people to debt?

The very philosophies that governed Hamilton's views and decisions is not consistent with the notion that he was even CLOSE TO WANTING TO ENSLAVE PEOPLE TO DEBT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not even going to pretend for one second that the First Bank of the United States was well thought out, and that its actions or even existence were reflective of what was truly conducive towards the success and prosperity of the people... but to attempt to paint a person as wanting to subject the American people to indebtedness is crazy talk.

oh man... there's so much more to this.

Rather than me rambling, would you care to back up that statement? Maybe there's a lot that I've missed, for I am not seeing it!

reply to post by capob


Here's a suggestion as to changes to be made...

How about letting the idea of 3 presidents being added. As soon as I heard of this idea, I was in favor!
Here's why:

1 President will never represent the sentiment that was the basis for their being elected. No matter how we slice it, it is never the case... Campaign promises are just rhetoric.

2 Presidents, will never wholly agree on EVERY issue, which will slow down the process of executing the powers of their position. It will also bring further warranted debate as to the true initiatives behind the decisions.

3 Presidents, being that 2 presidents can represent a duality in perceiving the right direction of our country. A third can/will represent the compromising between the two. Or, will represent more strength as to the decision made, for it will have greater backing, and be result of debate between the 3.

I think this would be perfect, and would work as such... each president serves 4 years.
2 are to be elected in one election, and 1 is to be elected in an election held 2 years later.

There's much to the reasoning behind this, but ATS can theorize as to the relationships that this will create. As it is late, and my mind isn't up to the task of fully describing the basis for this idea.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


In support of the Banking bill Hamilton gave these reasons to President Washington:

What the government could do for a person (incorporate), it could not refuse to do for an "artificial person", a business. And the Bank of the United States, being privately owned and not a government agency, was a business. "Thus...unquestionably incident to sovereign power to erect corporations to that of the United States, in relation to the objects entrusted to the management of the government." Any government by its very nature was sovereign "and includes by force of the term a right to attainment of the ends...which are not precluded by restrictions & exceptions specified in the constitution..

Our first mention of corporations as persons. We've come full circle to the Citizens United decision and now unlimited funding of candidates is possible by business interests. I found it rather prophetic Hamilton would say such a thing.

I believe that Hamilton really was a British agent working for the interests of the Crown against the desires of the States to issue their own currencies.

Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
reply to post by capob

 

Here's a suggestion as to changes to be made...

How about letting the idea of 3 presidents being added. As soon as I heard of this idea, I was in favor!
Here's why:

1 President will never represent the sentiment that was the basis for their being elected. No matter how we slice it, it is never the case... Campaign promises are just rhetoric.

2 Presidents, will never wholly agree on EVERY issue, which will slow down the process of executing the powers of their position. It will also bring further warranted debate as to the true initiatives behind the decisions.

3 Presidents, being that 2 presidents can represent a duality in perceiving the right direction of our country. A third can/will represent the compromising between the two. Or, will represent more strength as to the decision made, for it will have greater backing, and be result of debate between the 3.

I think this would be perfect, and would work as such... each president serves 4 years.
2 are to be elected in one election, and 1 is to be elected in an election held 2 years later.

There's much to the reasoning behind this, but ATS can theorize as to the relationships that this will create. As it is late, and my mind isn't up to the task of fully describing the basis for this idea.

If this logic were true, then by the fact we have more than 2 senators, we should have a perfect senate. What would prevent these presidents from nominally arguing and then falling in line when it comes to actually doing things (like democrats and repubs in the house and senate)? It would appear the only thing this multiple president system would achieve is a distribution of the onus coming from bad decisions - just like in the house and senate..

Originally posted by capob

Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
reply to post by capob

 

Here's a suggestion as to changes to be made...

How about letting the idea of 3 presidents being added. As soon as I heard of this idea, I was in favor!
Here's why:

1 President will never represent the sentiment that was the basis for their being elected. No matter how we slice it, it is never the case... Campaign promises are just rhetoric.

2 Presidents, will never wholly agree on EVERY issue, which will slow down the process of executing the powers of their position. It will also bring further warranted debate as to the true initiatives behind the decisions.

3 Presidents, being that 2 presidents can represent a duality in perceiving the right direction of our country. A third can/will represent the compromising between the two. Or, will represent more strength as to the decision made, for it will have greater backing, and be result of debate between the 3.

I think this would be perfect, and would work as such... each president serves 4 years.
2 are to be elected in one election, and 1 is to be elected in an election held 2 years later.

There's much to the reasoning behind this, but ATS can theorize as to the relationships that this will create. As it is late, and my mind isn't up to the task of fully describing the basis for this idea.

If this logic were true, then by the fact we have more than 2 senators, we should have a perfect senate. What would prevent these presidents from nominally arguing and then falling in line when it comes to actually doing things (like democrats and repubs in the house and senate)? It would appear the only thing this multiple president system would achieve is a distribution of the onus coming from bad decisions - just like in the house and senate..

Senators are there to represent each state... there ARE 2 from each. They can communicate/represent the dualistic nature of addressing issues. Being that there are 100 of them, their collective body then becomes the device in which a union of states can decide as to the course of action. And each, equally represented, regardless of population.

When you then add in the house of representatives (lower house) with the upper house, you now address strength in population of the states in relation to the union.

So yeah... I think it makes perfect sense, if we just made it 3 presidents, we'd have a stronger union.