Has our Government become Dysfunctional?

[Wry Catcher]

Three things need to be accomplished in my opinion to restore sanity to our government:

1. A COTUS Amendment giving the POTUS the Line-Item Veto and also allowing for every such veto to be overridden by a 2/3 vote in both the Senate and H. of Rep.;

2. A COTUS Amendment wherein the POTUS serves only a single six-year term of office;

3. A COTUS Amendment which requires each member of the Supreme Court to serve no more than three Ten year terms, and be returned to the court for 10 years only upon receiving at least 50% plus one vote in a nation-wide referendum, with mandatory retirement at age 75th Birthday notwithstanding the date of their third successful ratification by the people.

Poll to follow

 

[Trajan]

Three things need to be accomplished in my opinion to restore sanity to our government:

1. A COTUS Amendment giving the POTUS the Line-Item Veto and also allowing for every such veto to be overridden by a 2/3 vote in both the Senate and H. of Rep.;

the 1996-98 line item veto was found unconstitutional, the Bush 2006 offering would let congress approve or disapprove the cuts he made....I don't see the point and, I see this as encroachment on Congresss' power.

2. A COTUS Amendment wherein the POTUS serves only a single six-year term of office;

why?

3. A COTUS Amendment which requires each member of the Supreme Court to serve no more than three Ten year terms, and be returned to the court for 10 years only upon receiving at least 50% plus one vote in a nation-wide referendum, with mandatory retirement at age 75th Birthday notwithstanding the date of their third successful ratification by the people.

Poll to follow

why?

 

[boedicca]

The first three choices are inadequate, and the three proposals in the OP are pointless.

Our government is now too big to succeeed...and has access to an excess of taxpayer money, which results in the inevitable moral hazard. Big Government Cronyism is our biggest problem. The three suggestions above do NOTHING to address it.

We need to narrow the scope of government back the specifications of the Constitution, and eliminate government funding of so-called Positive Rights (using the government to mug someone else).

 

[Wry Catcher]

Three things need to be accomplished in my opinion to restore sanity to our government:

1. A COTUS Amendment giving the POTUS the Line-Item Veto and also allowing for every such veto to be overridden by a 2/3 vote in both the Senate and H. of Rep.;

the 1996-98 line item veto was found unconstitutional, the Bush 2006 offering would let congress approve or disapprove the cuts he made....I don't see the point and, I see this as encroachment on Congresss' power.

2. A COTUS Amendment wherein the POTUS serves only a single six-year term of office;

why?

3. A COTUS Amendment which requires each member of the Supreme Court to serve no more than three Ten year terms, and be returned to the court for 10 years only upon receiving at least 50% plus one vote in a nation-wide referendum, with mandatory retirement at age 75th Birthday notwithstanding the date of their third successful ratification by the people.

Poll to follow

why?

1. Too many items in the budget are there because of logrolling. If we are concerned with the size of the deficit it seems every effort to provide for a means to constitutionally control spending seems appropriate. The Congress will have the ability to override any such line-item veto.

2. A single six-year term allows a POTUS to put forth his agenda (which hopefully is congruent with his election campaign rhetoric) and not give in to concerns for his reelection. His or her legacy will be determined by his or her ability to lead and convince the nation and members of Congress as to the viability of the polices proposed.

3. A lifetime appointment may have made sense in the 18th Century when the life expectancy was much shorter. Today our Justices serve well into their 80's and many have been on the court for decades.

As someone who was the boss and worked for five Chiefs over a 32 year career I learned that being top dog has a creative experience of no more than five years. After that some begin to defend what they've done and new ideas become a threat.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Repeal the Budget Impoundment Act of 1974

 

[Wry Catcher]

The first three choices are inadequate, and the three proposals in the OP are pointless.

Our government is now too big to succeeed...and has access to an excess of taxpayer money, which results in the inevitable moral hazard. Big Government Cronyism is our biggest problem. The three suggestions above do NOTHING to address it.

We need to narrow the scope of government back the specifications of the Constitution, and eliminate government funding of so-called Positive Rights (using the government to mug someone else).

I understand your ideology, I reject it. So would have Mr. T. Jefferson:

"..that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes

The ideology you support is indeed one which would change our nation for "light and transient causes". The genius of the COTUS is based on checks and balances and ambiguity. Sadly the patriots in the 18th Century never imagined faux patriots willing to jeopardize the Union which our founders established by risking their very lives and the cause those who now lie in our National Cemetery's died protecting.

 

[boedicca]

The first three choices are inadequate, and the three proposals in the OP are pointless.

Our government is now too big to succeeed...and has access to an excess of taxpayer money, which results in the inevitable moral hazard. Big Government Cronyism is our biggest problem. The three suggestions above do NOTHING to address it.

We need to narrow the scope of government back the specifications of the Constitution, and eliminate government funding of so-called Positive Rights (using the government to mug someone else).

I understand your ideology, I reject it. So would have Mr. T. Jefferson:

"..that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes

The ideology you support is indeed one which would change our nation for "light and transient causes". The genius of the COTUS is based on checks and balances and ambiguity. Sadly the patriots in the 18th Century never imagined faux patriots willing to jeopardize the Union which our founders established by risking their very lives and the cause those who now lie in our National Cemetery's died protecting.

Thank you for displaying your complete and utter ignorance of what Jefferson said.

 

[Trajan]

Three things need to be accomplished in my opinion to restore sanity to our government:

1. A COTUS Amendment giving the POTUS the Line-Item Veto and also allowing for every such veto to be overridden by a 2/3 vote in both the Senate and H. of Rep.;

the 1996-98 line item veto was found unconstitutional, the Bush 2006 offering would let congress approve or disapprove the cuts he made....I don't see the point and, I see this as encroachment on Congresss' power.





why?

3. A COTUS Amendment which requires each member of the Supreme Court to serve no more than three Ten year terms, and be returned to the court for 10 years only upon receiving at least 50% plus one vote in a nation-wide referendum, with mandatory retirement at age 75th Birthday notwithstanding the date of their third successful ratification by the people.

Poll to follow

why?

1. Too many items in the budget are there because of logrolling. If we are concerned with the size of the deficit it seems every effort to provide for a means to constitutionally control spending seems appropriate. The Congress will have the ability to override any such line-item veto.

I don't see the point......making them take another vote? why?

2. A single six-year term allows a POTUS to put forth his agenda (which hopefully is congruent with his election campaign rhetoric) and not give in to concerns for his reelection. His or her legacy will be determined by his or her ability to lead and convince the nation and members of Congress as to the viability of the polices proposed.

this cuts both ways, if we have a bad one we can try and dump him/her in 4, if they suck, we're stuck for 6. If we have a good one, we can get them for 8.

3. A lifetime appointment may have made sense in the 18th Century when the life expectancy was much shorter. Today our Justices serve well into their 80's and many have been on the court for decades.

As someone who was the boss and worked for five Chiefs over a 32 year career I learned that being top dog has a creative experience of no more than five years. After that some begin to defend what they've done and new ideas become a threat.

not convinced.

 

[Trajan]

The first three choices are inadequate, and the three proposals in the OP are pointless.

Our government is now too big to succeeed...and has access to an excess of taxpayer money, which results in the inevitable moral hazard. Big Government Cronyism is our biggest problem. The three suggestions above do NOTHING to address it.

We need to narrow the scope of government back the specifications of the Constitution, and eliminate government funding of so-called Positive Rights (using the government to mug someone else).

I understand your ideology, I reject it. So would have Mr. T. Jefferson:

"..that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes

The ideology you support is indeed one which would change our nation for "light and transient causes". The genius of the COTUS is based on checks and balances and ambiguity. Sadly the patriots in the 18th Century never imagined faux patriots willing to jeopardize the Union which our founders established by risking their very lives and the cause those who now lie in our National Cemetery's died protecting.

I understand your ideology,

why was that necessary?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Repeal the Budget Impoundment Act of 1974

For further reading on efforts to control the budget and the battle between The Congress and the Executive read:

1974 Budget and Impoundment Control Act - Timeline - Slaying the Dragon of Debt - Regional Oral History Office - University of California, Berkeley

 

[Wry Catcher]

The first three choices are inadequate, and the three proposals in the OP are pointless.

Our government is now too big to succeeed...and has access to an excess of taxpayer money, which results in the inevitable moral hazard. Big Government Cronyism is our biggest problem. The three suggestions above do NOTHING to address it.

We need to narrow the scope of government back the specifications of the Constitution, and eliminate government funding of so-called Positive Rights (using the government to mug someone else).

I understand your ideology, I reject it. So would have Mr. T. Jefferson:

"..that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes

The ideology you support is indeed one which would change our nation for "light and transient causes". The genius of the COTUS is based on checks and balances and ambiguity. Sadly the patriots in the 18th Century never imagined faux patriots willing to jeopardize the Union which our founders established by risking their very lives and the cause those who now lie in our National Cemetery's died protecting.

I understand your ideology,

why was that necessary?

That's a dumb question, though by editing it I suppose you feel clever. I understand the Tea Party movement which I characterize as one mostly populated by callous conservatives whose view of the future is either myopic or blind. Which is why I reject it.

 

[Immanuel]

Three things need to be accomplished in my opinion to restore sanity to our government:

1. A COTUS Amendment giving the POTUS the Line-Item Veto and also allowing for every such veto to be overridden by a 2/3 vote in both the Senate and H. of Rep.;

2. A COTUS Amendment wherein the POTUS serves only a single six-year term of office;

3. A COTUS Amendment which requires each member of the Supreme Court to serve no more than three Ten year terms, and be returned to the court for 10 years only upon receiving at least 50% plus one vote in a nation-wide referendum, with mandatory retirement at age 75th Birthday notwithstanding the date of their third successful ratification by the people.

Poll to follow

1. Who needs a budget? Just ask Obama.

2. No, two four year terms are adequate.

3. I could get behind this.

Now how come you did not add the important one which limits the terms of Congress?

Immie

 

[Wry Catcher]

Three things need to be accomplished in my opinion to restore sanity to our government:

1. A COTUS Amendment giving the POTUS the Line-Item Veto and also allowing for every such veto to be overridden by a 2/3 vote in both the Senate and H. of Rep.;

2. A COTUS Amendment wherein the POTUS serves only a single six-year term of office;

3. A COTUS Amendment which requires each member of the Supreme Court to serve no more than three Ten year terms, and be returned to the court for 10 years only upon receiving at least 50% plus one vote in a nation-wide referendum, with mandatory retirement at age 75th Birthday notwithstanding the date of their third successful ratification by the people.

Poll to follow

1. Who needs a budget? Just ask Obama.

2. No, two four year terms are adequate.

3. I could get behind this.

Now how come you did not add the important one which limits the terms of Congress?

Immie

1. Glib comments are beneath you.

2. I'm not happy with "Adequate". I much prefer creative and dynamic tempered by the pragmatic. There are always challenges and opportunities, both should be met head on and not debated on the impact of future electoral victory.

3. Why?

 

[Trajan]

I understand your ideology, I reject it. So would have Mr. T. Jefferson:

"..that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes

The ideology you support is indeed one which would change our nation for "light and transient causes". The genius of the COTUS is based on checks and balances and ambiguity. Sadly the patriots in the 18th Century never imagined faux patriots willing to jeopardize the Union which our founders established by risking their very lives and the cause those who now lie in our National Cemetery's died protecting.

I understand your ideology,

why was that necessary?

That's a dumb question, though by editing it I suppose you feel clever. I understand the Tea Party movement which I characterize as one mostly populated by callous conservatives whose view of the future is either myopic or blind. Which is why I reject it.

no, it just goes to show that you cannot discuss anything rationally, there was no need to get personal and inject that snippet, and then you doubled down....nice

 

[Trajan]

Repeal the Budget Impoundment Act of 1974

For further reading on efforts to control the budget and the battle between The Congress and the Executive read:

1974 Budget and Impoundment Control Act - Timeline - Slaying the Dragon of Debt - Regional Oral History Office - University of California, Berkeley

maybe you should try reading that for yourself, since; obama has been not been attentive ( and Reid's Senate to and Pelosi' s house too) in performing these duties as prescribed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

why was that necessary?

That's a dumb question, though by editing it I suppose you feel clever. I understand the Tea Party movement which I characterize as one mostly populated by callous conservatives whose view of the future is either myopic or blind. Which is why I reject it.

no, it just goes to show that you cannot discuss anything rationally, there was no need to get personal and inject that snippet, and then you doubled down....nice

Take your Red Herring and shove off. I answered honestly, something you can't seem to understand.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The first three choices are inadequate, and the three proposals in the OP are pointless.

Our government is now too big to succeeed...and has access to an excess of taxpayer money, which results in the inevitable moral hazard. Big Government Cronyism is our biggest problem. The three suggestions above do NOTHING to address it.

We need to narrow the scope of government back the specifications of the Constitution, and eliminate government funding of so-called Positive Rights (using the government to mug someone else).

I understand your ideology, I reject it. So would have Mr. T. Jefferson:

"..that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes

The ideology you support is indeed one which would change our nation for "light and transient causes". The genius of the COTUS is based on checks and balances and ambiguity. Sadly the patriots in the 18th Century never imagined faux patriots willing to jeopardize the Union which our founders established by risking their very lives and the cause those who now lie in our National Cemetery's died protecting.

Thank you for displaying your complete and utter ignorance of what Jefferson said.

Well, I posted the words Mr. Jefferson penned. Feel free to vet them to suit your particular needs.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So the usual suspects on the right post criticisms but no solutions, no ideas, no nothing but for Red Herrings & ad hominem attacks. They then cut and run.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Repeal the Budget Impoundment Act of 1974

For further reading on efforts to control the budget and the battle between The Congress and the Executive read:

1974 Budget and Impoundment Control Act - Timeline - Slaying the Dragon of Debt - Regional Oral History Office - University of California, Berkeley

maybe you should try reading that for yourself, since; obama has been not been attentive ( and Reid's Senate to and Pelosi' s house too) in performing these duties as prescribed.

Maybe you ought to get your head out of 'Limbaugh's' ass and forget who is POTUS. My post was non partisan and the issue (as I pointed out in response to CrusaderFrank, above) is long standing and in need of solutions.

You and the other 'Limbaugh' sycophant can't put partisanship aside for one moment, nor answer a simple set of questions rationally. Asking "why, why, why" is little more than a weak Red Herring (unless you're too dumb to understand the problems and see a non partisan effort at a solution as an attack on you).

 

[Immanuel]

Three things need to be accomplished in my opinion to restore sanity to our government:

1. A COTUS Amendment giving the POTUS the Line-Item Veto and also allowing for every such veto to be overridden by a 2/3 vote in both the Senate and H. of Rep.;

2. A COTUS Amendment wherein the POTUS serves only a single six-year term of office;

3. A COTUS Amendment which requires each member of the Supreme Court to serve no more than three Ten year terms, and be returned to the court for 10 years only upon receiving at least 50% plus one vote in a nation-wide referendum, with mandatory retirement at age 75th Birthday notwithstanding the date of their third successful ratification by the people.

Poll to follow

1. Who needs a budget? Just ask Obama.

2. No, two four year terms are adequate.

3. I could get behind this.

Now how come you did not add the important one which limits the terms of Congress?

Immie

1. Glib comments are beneath you.

2. I'm not happy with "Adequate". I much prefer creative and dynamic tempered by the pragmatic. There are always challenges and opportunities, both should be met head on and not debated on the impact of future electoral victory.

3. Why?

Why is a little bit of humor beneath me?

I think eight years with an escape clause works better than six and you are stuck.

Why do I agree with your idea of three ten year terms max for Supreme Court justices? Because some of them need to retire but won't.

Immie