→

The Constitution is outdated Part II

In Part I of this blog, I presented my reasons why I believe that the U.S. Constitution requires a major overhaul. However, simply calling for change is a rather useless exercise, unless the person advocating change has viable and reasonable alternatives. To reiterate, I made the recommendation that Presidential elections should be abolished and that the President should be chosen as the leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Representatives.

 

 

In Part II, I would like to consider the evolution  (or devolution) of Congress over the past few decades. Have you noticed that in the novels and movies of today, most elected officials are depicted as evil and/or corrupt? They are generally obsessed with their own agendas, and even resort to violence and murder. Rogue Presidents and Vice-Presidents are a favorite fiction topic as well.

In Part I, I referred to George Washington as America’s King George I, but without the Divine Powers of a monarch. The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives were also modeled after the English system that consists of a House of Lords and a House of Commons. The main difference is that, in England, the House of Lords is honorary and rarely assumes an active role in creating or passing legislation. Our neighbor to the north, Canada, has a system that mirrors the English House of Lords, in that members are appointed and not elected. In England, membership in the House of Lords is inherited, while in Canada, appointment to the Senate is generally in recognition of meritorious service to the country. In both cases, the “real” governing body is the House of Commons, whose members are voted in by their own constituencies. They represent the various political parties, each with its own platform.

Neither England nor Canada has a President. Instead, each political party chooses its own leader, and the leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons becomes the Prime Minister. In turn, the Prime Minister appoints his or her cabinet members, generally by selecting persons who have also been elected to the Commons. At any time, a party’s caucus of senior members can vote to replace the Prime Minister. Elections in Canada and England take place every four years or so. As long as one party holds a majority of the seats, it can pass legislation unimpeded. The opposition parties can raise objections and these are made known to the general public through the media. If the public-at-large is displeased with the actions of the governing party, it can vote an opposition party into power in the next election. On, occasion a shift in power can result in the reversal or amendment of prior legislation.

Both England and Canada have two or more well-established parties. In cases where one party does not garner the majority of the seats, two or more parties will usually form a coalition and govern together. If and when they can no longer agree, an election is called. The concept of a coalition gives other (smaller) parties an opportunity to participate in government, if their members have been elected in certain jurisdictions.

The Parliamentary system works well because those in power can govern without worrying about party politics. There is little need for “horse-trading” to get votes. As I just explained, if the general public becomes dissatisfied, there’s always another election looming within the foreseeable future.

In the United States, a very serious problem often occurs in cases where the President’s political party does not control either or both divisions of Congress. In Part I of this blog, I provided numbers showing how prevalent these splits have been over the last sixty years. The problem is magnified if different parties control one of  the two houses. Legislation often becomes watered-down and vote-getting becomes a function of excessive compromise.

I really enjoyed the movie Lincoln (not the movie Abe Lincoln- Vampire Hunter) . Lincoln depicts the extent of the convoluted deal-making and out-and-out blackmail that Abraham Lincoln had to resort to in order to push through the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1865 that abolished slavery. And Mr. Lincoln did not have to contend with the 12,000 lobbyists that haunt our nation’s capital today.

In Part I, I suggested that the decision in 1787 to divide the U.S. Congress into two Chambers was influenced, at least in part, by the system that was already a fixture of the governing system of England. The Founding Fathers decided that two Chambers would provide checks and balances to forestall tyranny and carefully weigh both long-term and short-term implications of pending legislation.

The House of Representatives was formulated to champion the will of the people.

The House of Representatives was formulated to champion the will of the people. Memberships were (and still are) allocated based on relative population by State. California, at one extreme, has 53 Representatives, while seven States have only one each. There are 435 seats in total. The House has several exclusive powers, including the ability to initiate revenue bills, to impeach officials and to elect the U.S. President if there is no majority in the Electoral College. Members serve two-year terms only. This last provision is, in my opinion, a recipe for gross inefficiency.  This is because members of the House must constantly devote a great deal of their time and efforts towards seeking reelection by raising money, instead of concentrating on their jobs. It is probably quite common for
members to cast their votes based on the  dictates of wealthy and influential campaign contributors .

The existence of the Senate has as its basis the consensus of the Founding Fathers that each Sovereign (self-governing) State should be equally represented by two delegates. The exclusive powers of the Senate include ratifying treaties with other countries and confirming the appointment of cabinet secretaries. federal judges and ambassadors. Members serve staggered six-year terms.

 

In summary, the Founding Fathers envisioned the House as representing the will of the people and the Senate as being responsible for the nation as a whole.

It is interesting to note that, while George Washington was a proponent of the bicameral framework for its ability to provide checks and balances, Thomas Jefferson advocated the efficiency of a single-chamber.

The world has become far more complex than it was in 1787. We have made tremendous strides in our ability to expand, not only within our own borders, but our influences are also felt world-wide. Yet, party politics, graft, corruption and special-interest lobbying continue to hobble our society. As we all know, law- making today is a time-consuming process and is, in many instances, watered- down by political compromise.

 

I therefore make the following specific recommendations:

1. All elections to both the House and the Senate should take place at four year intervals, as is the case now with Presidential elections.

I strongly believe that the current term of members of the House is too short. The system is costly, since members must devote a disproportionate amount of their time worrying about reelection, instead of concentrating on their legislative responsibilities. Further, since one must “make hay while the sun shines”, as the saying goes, there is the inclination to grab as much as possible for oneself in the short time allotted.

Four year terms for Senators would serve to streamline the system. The current policy of six- year staggered terms theoretically allows the senior Senator to teach the junior Senator from his or her State. However, I believe that Senate candidates should run on one ticket as a team, since the function of the Senate should not be to champion any particular State, but rather the country as a whole.

2. The respective roles of the House of Representatives and the Senate should be redefined to eliminate overlap.

I suggest that each of the Chambers should retain the exclusive rights and powers that they now enjoy. However, I believe the House should be made specifically responsible for domestic issues while the Senate’s activities should be restricted primarily to matters affecting international relations.

3. I recommend that Presidential elections should be abolished.

I believe that each party should elect a leader and a deputy leader internally. These people would become President and Vice-President respectively, if their party wins the majority of seats in the House of Representatives. Each candidate for the Presidency would campaign as they do now but, instead of expounding on  their own attributes (while dissing their opponents), they would be forced to emphasize the major platforms of their respective parties.  All contenders would probably represent different States and, winning or losing a personal race would become much less important than the results of each person’s party as a whole. After all, there is little advantage in winning a seat if your party winds up in a minority position on a nation-wide basis.

As it now stands, it is not the popular vote that determines the winner of a Presidential campaign. Rather, it falls upon the Electoral College, whose membership is determined with reference to each State’s relative population, to elect the President. Each State is allowed to appoint a certain number of representatives to the Electoral College and the members generally cast their ballots State- by- State in favor of the candidate who has received the most popular votes in that particular jurisdiction. In a few States, the votes may be split in proportion to the popular votes received by each candidate within the different districts.

If my suggestion to choose the person who is the leader of the party that has the most seats in the House of Representatives as president is adopted, the Electoral College would become redundant.

Under my proposed system, the President would always be working in tandem with the House. It is true that the majority in the Senate could be comprised of members of another party and the President would then have to deal  with a potentially hostile Senate on international matters.

As is the case today, the President would retain the opportunity to address the Senate to make known his or her his or her concerns, and the right of a President to veto Senate bills would be retained. Again, if the President’s own party does not agree with their leader on  significant issues, as I said before, the party’s caucus  could then vote to replace their leader.

In the third and final installment of this particular blog topic, I will deal with both lobbying and campaign financing issues. I will also propose measures to ensure that lawmakers obey the law. I will explain why contributions need not be made specifically  to Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates. Rather, contributions should be directed  to the individual parties, and the leaders of each party could then decide how to allocate the funds.  They would be forced to recognize that their major objective is NOT to elect one or two people to positions of high-power, but to accumulate the most seats on a country-wide basis.

Please stay tuned.

The post → appeared first on Thoughts From Outside The Box.

source http://thoughtsfromoutsidethebox.com/2016/10/06/141/