politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
There go your checks and balances.
If we come back from this, one of the first things needs to be the US Marshall service being moved under control of the Judiciary. So they have an actual enforcement arm for their decisions, instead of relying entirely on the Executive, which clearly will just ignore the decisions, and Congress will sit idly by.
Congress has two ways to override the Executive, one is veto overrides. The other is impeachment, which also can override the Judicial, and the processes include the enforcement of those decisions.
The Executive enforces laws as its primary function. As such, they can enforce those laws against the Legislative and Judicial as necessary.
One of the two main purposes of the Judicial branch is to ensure the other two are writing the laws correctly, and that those laws follow the requirements of existing ones, like the Constitution. So they can rule on passed laws, but they do not have a mechanism to enforce those, they rely on the Executive to do that, even if the Executive is the issue. Or they rely on the Legislative to act on a lack of enforcement.
The Judicial as it sits, is both one of the strongest and weakest links in the system. And until now, that weak part hasn't really been exposed since the Justice Department has historically been generally left to operate independently of the President, even though nothing actually prevents it from being abused like this.
Congress also needs to re-establish it's own enforcement capabilities. The "guard rooms" in the capitol need to be fitted with modern prison cells and the Sergeants at Arms of the House and Senate need to have contingents of trained officers under their own command. It's high time that people refusing to answer to Congress or committing contempt of Congress be detained properly without having to wait on a corrupt Department of Justice to to their job.
That's a great idea, and in hindsight it's ridiculous that it isn't already like that.
Personally, if the USA gets a complete overhaul, I think that there should be checks and balances through how each branch gets personnel. Furthermore, a fourth branch, the military, so that the executive isn't in charge of that function.
The staffing concept goes something like this:
Congress decides how many personnel the other branches can hire each year. Congress has to ask the judiciary, executive, and military branches to give them people to fill assorted roles as part of the congressional branch.
The judiciary hires and trains bureaucrats and military commanders. After they have completed training, they are passed onto the executive, congressional, and military branches. Every so often, commanders and burecrats will have to be retrained by the judiciary.
The executive will train ordinary soldiers, and release them into the service of the military. The executive also assigns logistical staff for the military, such as quartermasters, kitchen staff, and so on.
Once a bureaucrat or military member is a certain age, they can either retire or continue their career working for the judiciary. As members of the judicial branch, these workers can serve as bailiffs, enforcement troops for court orders, be assigned to serve congress as support staff, and so on. This means the judicial has a relatively fewer bodies than other branches, but they are also the most experienced.
The military can give the other branches defensive staff, such as cybersecurity experts, embassy guards, and so on.
Probably not perfect by any stretch, but the idea is to make it harder for any one branch to become "the" branch when it comes to human resources.
Ehh, that sounds over-engineered in my opinion, and reveals a lack of understanding of the organizational structure of the government. I understand you say it's an overhaul, but I think it stretches credulity a little too far.
Aside from the fact that it's unlikely to work as intended, it could also create a variety of unseen issues which may be even worse in the long run. Generally, large changes to the constitutional order need to be done with the utmost care. There's a good reason it would require supermajorities in both chambers, as well as the agreement of a supermajority of member states. That being said, it's not likely to gain that much support.
There are other more important changes that I think it would be better to focus on, which also have a greater chance of passing given enough support.
For instance, moving the Marshalls under the Judiciary is downright sensical; and as recent events make abundantly clear, necessary. Maybe even the entire DOJ, although putting prosecutors and sitting judges under the same authority might be dangerous.
We could add to that, giving Congress control over their own independent (and non-partisan; precisely how to achieve this would have to be worked out) security force.
Beyond that, we need electoral reform (ranked-choice voting and perhaps proportional representation), education reform (self-explanatory), healthcare reform (universal public healthcare, obviously), labor rights, consumer rights, the list goes on. Criminal justice reform as well. A lot of pieces of this pie, but that doesn't mean we need to turn it into a pretzel.
Oh and of course, overturning the Citizens United ruling, bringing back Net Neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine, and undoing so many other harmful rulings that have accrued over the decades since Nixon and Reagan.
Undoing the legacies of Reaganomics more broadly and returning to a more FDR-style economic system.
And of course a full-blown demagafication project, and not half-assed like Reconstruction either.