proposed constitutional amendment for U.S.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by clevin, Sep 7, 2006.

  1. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #1
    no political party should be allowed to control whitehouse, senate and house at the same time, and no political party should have 2/3 majority in senate.
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    How on earth do you legislate for that?
     
  3. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #3
    i'd rather see the US instate an amendment to have a vote of no confidence in the president.
     
  4. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #4
    So the amendment is for "Democracy Lite." Even if the people grant you all the power you're not allowed to have it.

    So why have democracy in the first place?

    Here, both houses of federal parliament are currently controlled by the one party with Little Johnny Howard at the helm of that party. Does it suck? Yes, but we, as voters (and we all vote) granted him that power at the last election. Come the next election we can take it away if we want.

    That amendment seems to take the will of the people out of the democratic process - bad idea. Yes, you're going to get situations that suck but at least you know you have no-one to blame but yourselves. Want to change the situation? Get out and vote next time.

    Just a quick aside, a lot of people overseas are of the impression that it is mandatory to vote here in Australia. That is incorrect. It is mandatory to have your name marked off at a polling booth on voting day but you can abstain from voting once inside, you just don't mark anything down on the paper. No names are assigned to votes. Most of us, I'd say 98%, do vote however so any government in power does have a legitimate mandate.
     
  5. clevin thread starter macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #5
    when the gov intentional educates people to be easily fooled, you know its going to be corrupted, if voters were to decide everything, why even need law system. if majority voter were to gain total control, why Mr. Bush was even elected in 2000?
     
  6. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #6
    I don't understand what you're asking me?

    Bush was elected in 2000 because your voting system was confusing and he got to the Supreme Court before Gore. We all know he didn't get the most votes and maybe that is what needs addressing.

    If the American voters want to vote a party into power in both houses, the so be it. I'm in no way saying that voters should be in charge of everything, where did you get that idea? I'm saying that the voters should be in charge of putting parties into government. Having a court decide that certain results from the democratic process are invalid in turn invalidates the democratic process. Sure, the courts can investigate the way in which the result was obtained and throw it out if it was illegal, but if the result was due to a fair and legal democratic election, they have no right to intervene.
     
  7. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #7
    Ironically, clevin's proposal would virtually require that one party have a 2/3 majority in the Senate in order for it to ever have a chance at getting to the part where the states have to ratify it.

    I will bet (just a single symbolic dollar) that we will not see even ONE more amendment to the Constitution... unless a complete disaster (such as an American city being nuked) occurs. The country is just too polarized right now; you can't even get people to agree that the sky is blue on a clear and sunny day.
     
  8. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #8
    the sky isn't blue. it's periwinkle.

    passing such an amendment would lead to a very bizarre scenario - you would chill membership in various political parties, and you would see nominal differences. suddenly you have the liberal democrats, the progressive democrats, and the modernist democrats (for example), all of whom share tickets, work together and consist of what was once the democratic party. same thing for the republicans.
     
  9. beatsme macrumors 65816

    beatsme

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    #9
    curiously enough, there's no way such an amendment would ever pass. A constitutional amendment requires 2/3 approval of both houses as well as 3/4 approval of all states. To guarantee 2/3 approval in both houses, one party would have to hold a majority of seats. There's just no way they would vote themselves out of power.

    EDIT1: clayj beat me to it

    EDIT2: though what you're suggesting is not new. Germany has a two-vote system, implemented after WWII, wherein you cast your first ballot for the candidate but you also cast a second ballot for the candidate's party. It is the second ballot that determines how many seats a political party will get in the legislature(s), the idea being that small parties with extreme platforms won't get too many seats or a disproportionate number of representatives.

    This link explains it better than I can.
     
  10. beatsme macrumors 65816

    beatsme

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    #10
    well, there is a mechanism to remove a sitting President (impeachment/conviction), but in that eventuality the Vice-President becomes President, and since they are both from the party and presumably of one mind, it doesn't seem like it'd make much difference.
     
  11. clevin thread starter macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #11
    if both parties would like to consider the future of the country, they would pass it, the reason that "a party who hold 2/3 majority is needed to pass this amendment" is just an indicate about how partisan this political system is right now, its not good.
     
  12. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #12
    Doesn't impeachment just boil away to a criminal charge against a sitting President? That is to say, Congress can't just up and say "We think you're doing a crappy job, so we're going to impeach you and have you leave,".

    Also, wouldn't a vote of no confidence have to come from a member of Congress? Maybe someone who understands parliamentary procedure better than I can shed light.

    Can we do it for Congress too?
     
  13. beatsme macrumors 65816

    beatsme

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    #13
    The Constitution reads:
    Article II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

    the catch is, "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not explicitly defined by the Constitution (though it's assumed to mean pretty much anything that does harm to the country and benefits someone else), so it's more or less up to the House to decide what falls inside the scope of the Article. If the political conditions are right, nearly anything could be considered an impeachable offense. Of course, impeachment does not guarantee removal from office...that's up to the Senate.

    A House member can be expelled by a 2/3 majority vote in the House.
     
  14. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #14

    Yeah, gotta love that. Getting a blow job is a high crime, but starting an unjust war, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths, while driving your economy into the ground is perfectly OK
     

Share This Page