01-14-2006, 01:47 AM
Hi,
However, since the president is limited to just under two and a half terms (say, 10 years) in office, and congress critters (especially Senators) often serve for years after they've died, the chances of permanently reversing the tradition are slim. As soon as a less popular or powerful president takes office, the line item abuse will start again.
Given that congress would be unwilling or unable to police itself, all other solutions are dismal. Giving the executive line item veto would permit him to, in many cases, negate the very purpose of the bills passed. Giving the judiciary the right to 'pre-approve' legislation is even worse -- although it might lighten their load later on. But the concept of officials appointed for life acting as a filter between the congress and the executive is . . . I really cannot think of a word horrific enough.
So, as bad as the situation is, all means of improving it that I've seen till now would only make it worse.
As to representation, our (USA) way of doing it has both some good points and some bad. Of course the long since fictitious concept of the states being sovereign (that was settled in 1865) is in part what gave us our system: one house (the Senate) to represent the states, the other to represent the people. Since now both houses represent neither, being rather bought entities of special interest groups, just how they get elected is a moot point. But consider the fact that about 10% of the voters are registered (another extra-Constitutional concept) as Libertarians, a 'fair' means of selecting our congress critters would have about 50 of them from that party (or group, whatever). I think there's only one.
But to improve the system, I think that both term limits and publicly funded campaigns need to be established. If the critters work for the people who paid to get them in office, then let those people be the public at large. And let public service be an avocation, not a sinecure.
--Pete
Walkiry,Jan 13 2006, 01:19 PM Wrote:Ah, no, that's not what I meant. Let me try again, is it too late for any elected president to start vetoing stuff that Congress sends him with ludicrous or stupid riders attached? And by too late I mean the tradition of passing whatever is sent their way is just too strong to start going against it.It really depends on the political climate. If the public thinks poorly of the congress, the congress is badly split, and the president has a very high popular (and, most importantly, media) support, then the president could start vetoing legislation because of the riders, spin the story so that he is the 'protector of the people' from congressional misconduct, and probably get away with it. However, a president must always be wary of antagonizing congress. If that should happen, then overriding vetoes will become a matter of course, and the president will be unable to implement any of his programs.
[right][snapback]99339[/snapback][/right]
However, since the president is limited to just under two and a half terms (say, 10 years) in office, and congress critters (especially Senators) often serve for years after they've died, the chances of permanently reversing the tradition are slim. As soon as a less popular or powerful president takes office, the line item abuse will start again.
Given that congress would be unwilling or unable to police itself, all other solutions are dismal. Giving the executive line item veto would permit him to, in many cases, negate the very purpose of the bills passed. Giving the judiciary the right to 'pre-approve' legislation is even worse -- although it might lighten their load later on. But the concept of officials appointed for life acting as a filter between the congress and the executive is . . . I really cannot think of a word horrific enough.
So, as bad as the situation is, all means of improving it that I've seen till now would only make it worse.
As to representation, our (USA) way of doing it has both some good points and some bad. Of course the long since fictitious concept of the states being sovereign (that was settled in 1865) is in part what gave us our system: one house (the Senate) to represent the states, the other to represent the people. Since now both houses represent neither, being rather bought entities of special interest groups, just how they get elected is a moot point. But consider the fact that about 10% of the voters are registered (another extra-Constitutional concept) as Libertarians, a 'fair' means of selecting our congress critters would have about 50 of them from that party (or group, whatever). I think there's only one.
But to improve the system, I think that both term limits and publicly funded campaigns need to be established. If the critters work for the people who paid to get them in office, then let those people be the public at large. And let public service be an avocation, not a sinecure.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?