The coming evangelical collapse

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Want change? Change the system. Give individual Members of Congress less power. Replacing the cogs will not really do much long term.

I don't believe that. Elect members that will pass the Enumerated Powers Act and that will have a long term impact.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Want change? Change the system. Give individual Members of Congress less power. Replacing the cogs will not really do much long term.

Changing Article I the Constitution and disrupting the checks and balances of the US government is impossible. So, let's think of other alternatives.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what system you run - you're going to get corruption - democracy, monarchy, communism, etc... all put power of a country into the hands of a few. Those few are not impurvious to the temptations of greed and corruption.

My solution, apply a term limit on members of Congress similar to the Presidency and Governors. 2 terms of no more than 4 years per. Turn over those that become stale. The opposition to that is that continuity is lost and those that do contribute positively to government would be shut out too early (the same arguments against Presidential terms).

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Changing Article I the Constitution and disrupting the checks and balances of the US government is impossible. So, let's think of other alternatives.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what system you run - you're going to get corruption - democracy, monarchy, communism, etc... all put power of a country into the hands of a few. Those few are not impurvious to the temptations of greed and corruption.

My solution, apply a term limit on members of Congress similar to the Presidency and Governors. 2 terms of no more than 4 years per. Turn over those that become stale. The opposition to that is that continuity is lost and those that do contribute positively to government would be shut out too early (the same arguments against Presidential terms).

You wouldn't have to change the constitution, you'd just have to change the rules of the Senate. Ending the filibuster for certain types of legislation is the best example of this. It would make things move so much faster.

Term limits are a bad idea. They'd only lead to a complete lack of experience and expertise in the Senate. Joe Biden, for example, became an expert in foreign affairs while serving in the Senate for 35 years. An expertise that would be impossible to develop in two terms.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I don't believe that. Elect members that will pass the Enumerated Powers Act and that will have a long term impact.

The system won't really allow for that to happen. Why would either House vote to pass that?

Also, why is that law even remotely necessary or practical? It's the Judicial branch's responsibility to determine if something is constitutional. Would this be implied powers or literal power? Who would decide this? Talk about slowing the process.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

The system won't really allow for that to happen. Why would either House vote to pass that?

Also, why is that law even remotely necessary or practical? It's the Judicial branch's responsibility to determine if something is constitutional. Would this be implied powers or literal power? Who would decide this? Talk about slowing the process.

From what I understand, it would limit the scope of the federal government. America was founded as a republic with 50 powerful state governments and a relatively weak federal government that concerns itself with a small handful of tasks (such as declaring war).

Instead, the legislative branch of the federal government is allocating money for free condoms (not their jurisdiction) and giving power to the President to engage in war (shirking their duties).

I admire America's founding documents as nothing short of brilliant, but they seem to be disregarded or interpreted as we please.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Gozer

From what I understand, it would limit the scope of the federal government. America was founded as a republic with 50 powerful state governments and a relatively weak federal government that concerns itself with a small handful of tasks (such as declaring war).

Instead, the legislative branch of the federal government is allocating money for free condoms (not their jurisdiction) and giving power to the President to engage in war (shirking their duties).

I admire America's founding documents as nothing short of brilliant, but they seem to be disregarded or interpreted as we please.

Well it's just impossible to have a universal interpretation of the constitution. Interpreting the constitution at all takes a ton of work and that's why it's left to the courts.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You and I don't often agree, but I will agree with this. People don't realize that the President is relatively powerless in legislative matters--the reins of power are held by a small club of mostly incompetent, mostly not-very-smart people whose single substantial (and bipartisan) achievement over the decades has been to protect incumbency through gerrymandering. It is a toxic influence on American political culture.

Yep.

And the system made be setup to fail, until you think about all the members of Congress that actually seem to care about more than just serving themselves.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Changing Article I the Constitution and disrupting the checks and balances of the US government is impossible. So, let's think of other alternatives.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what system you run - you're going to get corruption - democracy, monarchy, communism, etc... all put power of a country into the hands of a few. Those few are not impurvious to the temptations of greed and corruption.

My solution, apply a term limit on members of Congress similar to the Presidency and Governors. 2 terms of no more than 4 years per. Turn over those that become stale. The opposition to that is that continuity is lost and those that do contribute positively to government would be shut out too early (the same arguments against Presidential terms).

And limit the power of the government. Big time.

Less power they have, the less corruption you have. Just make sure the private system is regulated properly.

Its like the story a couple weeks ago about a doctor in the US who setup a monthly fee, where if patients paid it, they could get unlimited doctor visits, and certain forms of extra help. Fee was something like $79/month.

And the government took exception to it, and made him stop. The guy was effectively giving people access to good health care at a lower cost, doing it privately, and making it work......and the government stopped it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Joe Biden, for example, became an expert in foreign affairs while serving in the Senate for 35 years. An expertise that would be impossible to develop in two terms.

It might push more members of the military into government. You know, people with 'actual' experience in foreign policy. Those people who see the effects the policies Biden makes has in real life conditions.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Azure

It might push more members of the military into government. You know, people with 'actual' experience in foreign policy. Those people who see the effects the policies Biden makes has in real life conditions.

Why would it do that? They can enter in now and exit when they like and term limits would make the really good ex-military guys would have to leave when their term is done.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Why would it do that? They can enter in now and exit when they like and term limits would make the really good ex-military guys would have to leave when their term is done.

And new ones would come in to take their place, and nobody would get caught up in the 'power grab' in Washington.