Co-equal Branches of Government

[MarathonMike]

There is no system on Earth which will “work,” as intended when people deliberately corrupt it.

Yep, the Democrats have done all they can to make every important entity in America UNEQUAL.

 

[Rogue AI]

The real problem is courts thought they could gain power through incomplete interpretation and the other two branches would accept it. Now the executive simply ignores rulings they don't like, the legislature abuses its power because the courts got lazy and allowed it. The courts need to do their job, and deem unconstitutional executive actions and legislation, just that, unconstitutional, and explain only an amendment can move things forward. As intended.

 

[JohnDB]

The real problem is courts thought they could gain power through incomplete interpretation and the other two branches would accept it. Now the executive simply ignores rulings they don't like, the legislature abuses its power because the courts got lazy and allowed it. The courts need to do their job, and deem unconstitutional executive actions and legislation, just that, unconstitutional, and explain only an amendment can move things forward. As intended.

Nope....if only that was true.

But we have legislative branches interfering with Judicial pervues as well as judges legislating from benches. The Executive branch has been doing as they please because congress is usually in a stalemate.

It's not just one branch....it's ALL Three that have not been checked or balanced.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

It's not a matter of "can it survive?" Anymore but moreso "When is it going to finally fall?" Because the checks and balances have been effectively ignored.

The final failure event is inevitable, and is probably imminent. The checks and balances have been "ignored," because they were never any good except to temper the adverse effects of the inadequacies.

The three-branch government efficacy is probably limited to medium-sized governments with a very narrow margin of citizen diversity.

The smart thing to do is figure out a more sophisticated system of checks and balances, maybe need to have a more sophisticated separation model.

 

[JohnDB]

The final failure event is inevitable, and is probably imminent. The checks and balances have been "ignored," because they were never any good except to temper the adverse effects of the inadequacies.

The three-branch government efficacy is probably limited to medium-sized governments with a very narrow margin of citizen diversity.

The smart thing to do is figure out a more sophisticated system of checks and balances, maybe need to have a more sophisticated separation model.

View attachment 866598

Well we changed the system when we made Senators elected by popular vote.

Once upon a time they were appointed by Governors or the State's legislature. (Each state was different)

Completely different from today where they are basically a long term House of Representatives member. Which has really made the legislative branch "Mob Rule"....

The reason being was that as corruption increased the Senators were basically as corrupt as those who appointed them or worse. And people got tired of having yet another blatant entrenched corruption scandal. So most states changed the Senators to popular vote.
It was once a similar system to England's House of Lord's vx House of Commons.

It was shortly after WW2 that things really changed in most states. Little did people really understand what they were doing.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

In truth the congress has the lion's share of the Government's power.

You are silly.
Most of the power is in the executive security departments.
Congress has partisan control (slows things down, lucky) of issuing new laws - they have very limited control of old laws; and the laws that they are issuing now are incomprehensible - wake the fuck up!
The judiciary is poorly constructed. Judicial review needs to be formally constructed into the Constitution, now that we know the layout of civil law and a three-level system.

At this juncture of American technological sophistication, there should be no debate about the semantics of the phrases in the Constitution.

When you think about it really really hard; the basic system of the government should be indisputable - do we have that?

 

[JohnDB]

You are silly.
Most of the power is in the executive security departments.
Congress has partisan control (slows things down, lucky) of issuing new laws - they have very limited control of old laws; and the laws that they are issuing now are incomprehensible - wake the fuck up!
The judiciary is poorly constructed. Judicial review needs to be formally constructed into the Constitution, now that we know the layout of civil law and a three-level system.

At this juncture of American technological sophistication, there should be no debate about the semantics of the phrases in the Constitution.

When you think about it really really hard; the basic system of the government should be indisputable - do we have that?
View attachment 866612

Judicial review is a function of Congress.

It isn't people that participate on forums...and it isn't the executive branch either.

Congress have always been reticent to review the judges decisions. Been that way since forever. Only recently has there been a problem with appointing SCOTUS judges. And then there's the recent issues with the Federal Judges that the Biden administration has tried to appoint....as in a complete lack of competency in basic legal definitions. (The interviews have been horrifying to watch as they really wanted to appoint this person)

The different departments that constitute the executive cabinet are of course extremely powerful but they can be strictly controlled by congress....they make the laws and budgets. So no....I'm not silly.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

It's not just one branch....it's ALL Three that have not been checked or balanced.

They never were, and it has been the partisan contest to populate the three branches with politically aligned personnel that has checked the power since the FDR expansion of the government.

Kind of confirming that most of the power is in the executive branch.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Judicial review is a function of Congress.

That should be a function of the Senate, and the senators should be appointed from the pools of state judges.

Do you have any ideas for fixing the government, like that?

Nice, simple, and easy to recognize the reasoning is what we are looking for to help the dwebes around here to see the light.

The different departments that constitute the executive cabinet are of course extremely powerful but they can be strictly controlled by congress....they make the laws and budgets. So no....I'm not silly.

Yes, you are silly. You see, the power is in the law. The balance of power is in the distribution of the law. It appears that the power is in the legislature because they "make the law," but they are not wielding any laws except by partisan control of the assembly and committees. And that does not seem to be very good. If Biden is corrupt - why is it taking so long?

The legislature's checks on power are supposed to be from the ambition of the legislature, but that is thwarted by the ambitions of the parties to control the three branches - its not that difficult to figure out.

The formulation of the legislature fails to dissipate the factions that we have. The Founders were able to dissipate the physical factions of state populations, and slavery, but they were unable to understand how to dissipate, or control, what would form the factions that emerged; and so, they are formed in error to work in an erroneous governing system. There was not enough information back then, and from your standpoint - there still is no practical idea to control the factions properly. At best, proportional voting, or some other way of controlling the elections; but that is not going to work.

The political factions are formed in the legislatures, and because of the mathematics, legislatures are inclined to cycle into a duopoly; and because of the various other inadequacies, including the 17th Amendment, the guiding principle of the subsisting factions is to win elections and populate the three branches with politically aligned personnel. The parties' guiding principles are not abstract ideals of economics, or social justice, although they claim to do so; and for the most part, they defend those abstract ideals. But if something happens that creates a grievance bloc, the parties are inclined to pander to that bloc somehow - right? And if that means throwing a couple of other grievance blocs under the bus - they do it. And they do it without us knowing, because it is way too difficult for working people to follow and do that check on power.

We need a more sophisticated system of separation and checks on power.

The proper control on the political parties is by specifying the mission of the legislatures, and then the qualification standards - state judiciary for the Senate.

Yes, the Founders did the best that they could with what little information they had, but political science has let you down, and I am delivering the paradigm.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

I don't know that the Founders ever anticipated a Party as corrupt and determined to destroy the country as the Democrats. The fundamental assumption was that our leaders would at least be working FOR the benefit of America.

Okay, so, you agree that a more sophisticated system of checks and balances is probably in order?

How do we test to ensure that the elected and appointed are working For the benefit of America?

Tough to do. I think a new idea about the separation of government is the proper way to look at it.

 

[MarathonMike]

Okay, so, you agree that a more sophisticated system of checks and balances is probably in order?

How do we test to ensure that the elected and appointed are working For the benefit of America?

Tough to do. I think a new idea about the separation of government is the proper way to look at it.

Are you asking in terms of what is practical to do in the context of our current system or what I would do if I had the ultimate power to change government?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

MarathonMike
Give me answers to both of those conditions - I'm looking for all the possibilities

 

[MarathonMike]

MarathonMike
Give me answers to both of those conditions - I'm looking for all the possibilities

Ok, easier answer first. If I had the ultimate power to restore "Checks and Balances" I would:

1. US Attorney General not from the new President's Party and nominated by the minority Party.
2. FIre the FBI and CIA chiefs, new chiefs selected by votes from the FBI and CIA agents. Top to bottom review of all 18 intelligence agencies. Eliminate and consolidate agencies per review results.
3. Fire Myorkas and install a new HHS chief immediately by vote of existing agents. Not "checks and balances" per se but an urgent matter of national and economic security.
4. Refactor Electoral votes per state. Currently the top four states have too much influence and the other 46 have too little.
5. Create an independent judicial review panel made up of judges selected by each party for cases involving high level political leaders.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

1. US Attorney General not from the new President's Party and nominated by the minority Party.

It is obvious that the Justice Department is inadequately separated from the President.

The error is because the establishment of the department was long after the establishment of the Three-part Separation Theory. I think your solution is unreliable. It seems good to you and others, because it's simple to understand, and does not require a complete overhaul of the system and figuring out the what the balance of power is.

2. FIre the FBI and CIA chiefs, new chiefs selected by votes from the FBI and CIA agents. Top to bottom review of all 18 intelligence agencies. Eliminate and consolidate agencies per review results.
3. Fire Myorkas and install a new HHS chief immediately by vote of existing agents. Not "checks and balances" per se but an urgent matter of national and economic security.

Along with a complete reorganization of the separation, I recommend that department employees elect the leaders of their sections of the departments, and then the leaders from the legislative bodies select from that group the person they want to have direct communications with. But this comes with understanding more separate entities.

4. Refactor Electoral votes per state. Currently the top four states have too much influence and the other 46 have too little.

A Convention to deliberate more separation will also go over all of the possible election schemes and put them in the right entity system.

5. Create an independent judicial review panel made up of judges selected by each party for cases involving high level political leaders.

I recommend the states send state judges for the Senate seats to hear Constitutional problems and final appeals.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How does this work?

What aspects are calculated to balance the branches?

How do we analyze the control settings?

View attachment 859668

Balance? Do you mean they should weigh equally, because if so that was never the argument, or the intentions at the time of the framing.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Dante
Well, don't leave us ignoramuses hanging, explain how it works - genius!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante
Well, don't leave us ignoramuses hanging, explain how it works - genius!

again Professor, turn in your degree.

I did not state a claim on how it works. What I do claim is that you -- you are out there in your notions that the intentions of the clerks who wrote the constitution we use, wanted the 3 branches of government to be equally balanced. Balanced in a way... that they would be of equal weight (the scale you used ), as in no one branch ever having more power than the others.

To the divided government theory was added, checks and balances -- checks and balances, not meaning the branches of government to be of equal balance. Government being divided, the balance of power would constantly shift between the 3 branches.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The control settings were put in place over 200 years ago so they might require some tweaking. Many of the last few Presidents we've had have won office with a minority of voters. I think that would be a good place to start since if the Executive branch is not representative of the electorate, the SCOTUS won't be either.

I'd also like to see gerrymandering made illegal since that too creates unrepresentative state governments. The recent abortion referendums have shown some state legislatures to be out of touch with voters.

The President cannot install a Supreme Court Justice. The representative, legislative branch can stall nominees.

 

[Libby von H]

How does this work?

What aspects are calculated to balance the branches?

How do we analyze the control settings?

View attachment 859668

Or maybe you are a Hillary Clinton pseudo-metaphysics type with her 3 core stupid ideas
1)Every problemhas a Perfect Solution
2) People don't matter,just set up the no-fail perfect government and it goes by itself
3) It is not possible that under the best circumstances people won't act right.

3 seems to me proof of moral cancer but I cannot judge.

 

[alang1216]

The President cannot install a Supreme Court Justice. The representative, legislative branch can stall nominees.

The Pres nominates whoever he wishes. The Senate votes on the nominee. The Pres, like Trump can be elected by a minority of voters thanks to the EC. The Senate can also be unrepresentative of voters since states with a small population have as many Senators as larger states. Rule by a minority is a recipe for discontent.