First, I'm not sold on a unicameral legislature. I do think there is a value to having a Senate-like chamber, one that has longer terms so they can act (hopefully) with more consideration and time. Saying that, I also think some of their power should be limited/reduced, or solidified. For example, if a person is nominated for a position by the President (say for Secretary of Defense) there should be a mandatory up or down vote in X number of days. None of these delays, like we saw by McConnell for judges. Second, I do like the idea that districts are based on population and not limited by state boundaries. This is important because there will be metro areas that stretch multiple states, like New York City, or Chicago/Milwaukee (will be one mega Metro area in the near future). It would also change the dynamic between places like LA-San Diego and Fresno.
Good point about unfair burden on the less well-to-do. Agree on easing the burden, I like the federal holiday for federal elections. When 60% is a big turn-out, we remain absentee landlords.
I'm all for bi-cameral legislature. If we have states as specific entities, I'm fine with having a branch that is apportioned on states. Getting rid of the electoral college would be a must. Actually, I think Congress needs to be made much stronger, not weaker. Maybe 55% to impeachment a pres.
The Constitution of 1787-2016 is a dead letter. There is simply no returning to it as a form of governance. The fundamental arguments are: 1. How a federation governs itself -- the states will not go away 2. How to elect representatives to the federal government 3. How specific to make the new Constitution -- many states and countries have Constitutions that are hundreds of pages long 4. How to ensure a balance between judicial subordination and judicial supremacy 5. How tax receipts are spent and by whom We have to go back to basics. The Constitution has failed on all five of these in the past year.
Re #2 Expand the House, and implement multi representative districts with some kind of proportional representation. Maybe make 3 member districts the standard, with a system where 3rd parties will squeak out some seats. Also, the voting system should discourage extremists on both sides (as a practical matter, 99% of the extremists are conservatives, but that isn’t inevitable going forward.) This would probably end majority minority districts. In practice, I’m pretty sure we’d see a lot of POCs elected as one of the 3 representatives. One factor in hyperpartisanship that folks in the South are more aware of than most of you is how Bush I’s DOJ forced a big increase in maj-min districts in the South. That has crushed moderate representation from the South, in both parties. That has been a big contributing factor to how Chicago, NYC, and the Bay Area have absolutely dominated Democratic leadership over the last decade. Obama, Pelosi, Harris, Schumer, Jeffries…no diversity there.
Cross posted per request Arrest prosecute and imprison Expand the SCOTUS to make these 6 irrelevant Pass anti gerrymandering laws (only nominate judges that agree it’s constitutional) Pass a new VRA that makes every republican state pre clear Make Election Day a national holiday Win. Level the playing field. Pass shit people like…keep winning then ******** the 30% of our population that is like this. Make them irrelevant
We need to expand both SCOTUS and congress, implement term limits and hard finance and calendar restrictions on campaigning. The SCOTUS should have more members (15?) but they should make decisions in smaller panels (5?), so the turnaround is faster; a decision by the panel could be appealed and turned over by the chamber at full, but the threshold needs to be higher and reserved only for constitutional type cases, with narrow decisions. I do agree that a separate Constitutional court should be created, either as a separate chamber, or as a section of SCOTUS, but as such, the members should rotate every few years, and be less involved in other matters. The house should be made that the smaller district would set the number of people represented by a congress person, meaning that if Wyoming has 600k habitants, a state with 30 million should have 67 representatives, and overall the house should have about 585 seats. For the senate, States bigger than the average by population (about 7 million) should get another seat for every 7 million, meaning that NY would get 1 more senator, FL 2, TX 3 and CA 4. Also, make all the territories and DC into states, or at least give them 1 full representative and 1 full senator. Oh, and abolish the Electoral College. Campaigning should require full disclosure of donors, with strict limits and no corporations or PACs allowed. The campaign cycle should be restricted to 2 months before the election day, and we should require states, counties and cities to adhere to a more uniform calendar; elections should happen either on weekends, or election day should be a national holiday.
I don’t see any correlation between term limits and inoculating us from another fascist. Can you lay out your reasoning? The intent of this thread wasn’t to create a wish list for good governance. The intent is in the first sentence of the first post. It’s to create a list of things that will hold fascists accountable, and also prevent future fascists from gaining power.
Term limits, along with a greatly expanded court, would get rid of the chance for court packing like Trump was able to do. We take it to 21 where groups of 7 decide any case. The most senior justice gets replaced every year. I’d like to also see the existing court have to majority-approve any nominee expressly with the mandate to hold high professional standards to counter any political appointee. And there should be an independent group that applies ethics and recusals. The hard part is how to buffer any group from fascist capture or capitulation. That’s a hard one to grasp.
How would limiting senators to two terms and representatives to 6 terms limit court packing? That makes no sense to me.
I guess I wasn’t following your thread of thought. I was thinking the term limit for SCOTUS would be 21years if we have 21 justices. I’m not certain where the 12yr thing came from? Anyway, this isn’t super thought out.
I always associate “term limits” with elected officials, not judges. If we are going to have 9 judges, until I’m persuaded otherwise, they should have 18:year terms. 21 years for 21 justices makes sense too. So I agree in that case.
I generally think term limits are not great outside of the executive branch. Expertise is valuable. I’ve said it elsewhere before, but Senators should be limited absolutely to 5 terms. That’s 30 years. Considering that almost all senators are 40+ when they first get elected, this limit helps remedy some of the inertia we’ve seen. It wouldn’t solve all of it. Essentially, if someone won a 5th term, they’d dedicate most of it to transition out. I could be talked into 4terms. But this is also assuming we keep a legislative body like the senate. I’d like a body like the Senate to be proportional representation politically and operate more like a foreign-policy-specific body, that can only approve or amend what the House sends their way on domestic issues. The House would deal with domestic issues and could only amend or approve what the senate sends them when it comes to foreign policy. They would work together to create a budget. The House I’d also increase to about 1 per 150-200k people. Term limits there could be less than 30years. Maybe 24? Don’t know. Limit campaign and fundraising season. Money is not speech. Donation limits are set for primary and then general. No anonymous donations. Corporations have the same limit as individuals. Any individual, company or organization spending over X-amount (could be different for each) on lobbying is taxed 100% above that limit.
Yeah, this guy, and this guy agree. Him too. Also this guy. Can't forget about This Guy. Let those pricks stay in semi-permanent roles fvkcing all of us over for decades, amirite?
Not all of them, but under my premise, Grassley would have been gone in 2011. McConnell in 2015 Gingrich did his damage in 20 years in the House, most of it around years12-16 Hastert 20yrs too McCarthy only 16years Increasing the House to over 2000 members would likely keep asshats like that in the House at bay. Maybe not.
The overarching point is that "experience" isn't all for good, but rather, mostly for ill. The more experience an elected @$$hole gets, the more capable that @$$hole gets at passing sh!t that harms our democracy. And the more time they get to meet piece of shyte lobbyists who give them legalized bribery to serve THEM, not us the voting public. And the more "experience" those @$$holes get, the better they get at manipulating markets to line their/their donors' pockets, to the detriment of the rest of us. And the more time they serve, the more ingrained their corrupt cronies become embedded in the process, infecting more and more of the rare elected official that attempts to actually do their jobs. "Experience" is good, only up to a point. However, the overwhelming majority of "experience" seems to create corrupt, capricious pieces of sh!t in our elected officials. Without HARSH term limits, you'll only have 2000 self-serving, corrupt, lying pieces of sh!t, rather than the mere 538 we suffer with today. Make the House elections every 4 years, rather than every other year. 3 term max. The senate can be every 6, but a limit of 3 terms. "Up or out," and then those elected a$$holes HAVE TO go live in their districts for the rest of their lives, to live with the consequences of their actions in office. No fleeing your district, then taking a lobbying job in DC, or copying up to your PACs after you're done, Kirsten Synema-style.
Are we limit this to things that can be accomplished through legislation with control of all three branches or are we gonna lay out fantasies about things we’d do if we could amend the constitution? The former is way more interesting than the latter imho.
If you’re asking me, I’m looking for anything that could plausibly be done. So not just things that can be done through legislation; I’d include telling the Supremes that Holder and Citizens United and a handful of other cases were wrongly decided so suck it (or reform the court to achieve the same result.). Eliminating the Senate doesn’t seem plausible. Making it more small d democratic is.
What does saying “suck it” get you? How does DOJ enforce a law that SCOTUS says is unconstitutional? You sue to stop “unlawful” donations. In federal court.
Besides term limits, an explicit code of conduct is needed for SCOTUS. No donations or cushy gigs, outside of their judicial salaries; if they want to cash, they can only accept teaching positions or book deals after retirement.
Right…and when the 6 violate they can be impeached and removed. Good luck finding 67 senators. there is no reforming the Supreme Court without expansion. Expansion is a prerequisite to accomplishing anything. The 6….like trump…could murder someone in the middle of 5th avenue and there still wouldn’t be enough votes to remove.
Such a list is useless if people do not do those things. We already have a 2A and as of yet nobody has exercised that option. Maybe we just need to use the tools available to us.
The same way Andrew Jackson did Indian removal. And the same way this administration is ignoring court rulings at an industrial scale. They emulate Nike…Just Do It. The Supremes have literally no power that is not allowed it by the other two branches.
The scope for corruption is insane. We used to ask them to do the right thing based on the honor system. That doesn’t work with hacks who have no honor.