Quote:
Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars
1. No appointed officials. Everyone gets elected.
One of the biggest problems I see, is that the people who really matter are appointed (i.e.: the Presidential Cabinet and Justices). Justices would serve for probably 10 years (single term limit).
2. Shift power from the federal gov't to the states -- almost all of it. Like it was originally intended.
3. Respect the Constitution. Make the language less ambiguous.
4. Create a "people's army" which is not controlled by the federal gov't, but rather an assembly of state controlled militias. This army would serve to keep the federal gov't in check. If the federal gov't ever abused its power, it would have to answer to the people's army.
|
#1. The problem with that is that the Executive Branch is supposed to act as one body. The President acts through his subordinates (e.g., the SecDef) and derives much of his power through the Cabinet. When you elect a President, you also "elect" his policies as executed by his subordinates. If you strip the President of his authority to appoint Cabinet members, then you strip him of the ability to act as an Executive. It would be like telling a CEO to act as chief executive and then telling him he can't fire anyone and his subordinates do not have to listen to his policy initiatives.
As for Justices being elected, I am so glad that they are not. When Justices are appointed with lifetime tenures, they are insulated from political pressures and (relatively speaking) vote according to what they think is the legally correct answer. I would be scared if Justices were voting not according to what they thought was right, but according to what they thought would make for a good 30-second soundbite on the news.
#3 The Constitution is intentionally ambiguous - it is not a laundry list of crimes, rules, etc. It has survived so long because it is ambiguous and capable of adapting to changing environments. I think the Founders were wise to make it ambiguous and capable of adapting to change.