Monica Lewinsky penned on op-ed Monday calling for a series of constitutional amendments, including age limits for elected officials and a ban on presidential self-pardons. In a piece in Vanity Fai…
I disagree with a bunch of her proposals simply for the reason that I fundamentally disagree that America should have an elected president.
I believe the 3 branches of government should be the Judiciary, the States, represented by the Senate, and the People, represented by the House.
The Senate isn’t a legislating house, it’s a house that has the choice to veto legislation with a 2/3rds or more vote, led by a Tribune who calls such votes when deemed necessary, if the Senate itself doesn’t override the Tribune with another 2/3rds or more vote.
Critically, the Senate has 27 representatives from each state, 21 from permanently inhabited territories, and 15 from Indigenous Nations and Labor Unions of 5k or more members, and from County level divisions which have larger populations than individual states. Now every small guy in US politics has their interests served by the Senate.
The house is expanded so that every US State gets a number of reps equal to however many times 50k fits into their population, grouped into districts where 5-9 representatives hail from with a proportionate number of constituents. House is led by a Consul and elected cabinet.
The expanded House and Senate will be a lot to wrangle, but the American people will have a far more functional and personally validating selection of leaders and representatives, and that alone will significantly boost satisfaction with and thereby participation in our democracy.
All everyone wants is for there to be at least someone they feel like hears their deal sitting in office, and with these mega districts, odds are fairly good that at least one sitting representative and one sitting senator will be that guy who gets where you’re coming from and assures you your issues are being fought for.
I disagree wholely that the system works, necessary change is held up constantly by archaic creaking procedures and the rightful distribution of power has long been parasitically weathered away by the unchained executive ever since Jackson normalized the fiat veto.
Any independent executive will inherently make itself a threat to the sovereignty of the people, because it will inherently seek ways to achieve its agenda whenever it runs up against legislative opposition.
This idea is outdated by 150 years. The Civil War clearly established that the United States is no longer a Confederation of individual states, it’s a Union. We literally say “indivisible” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Senate doesn’t need to exist. Unicameral legislatures are very common in the world today, and they work.
I disagree that the Senate doesn’t need to exist, I think that the hand it currently holds is unbalanced, but being a tool of intervention by small players against the will of the people trampling minority rights is a well justified place in government.
Plus, it’s a 2/3rds plus veto, so it’s only coming down when a large number of those seated across the political spectrum are in agreement that an act of Congress is going too far with something.
Unicameral legislatures are very common in the world today, and they work.
Do you disagree with that? It’s true. No country ever moves from unicameral to bicameral because it’s simpler and easier.
There’s already other veto powers: the President and the Supreme Court can both veto the Legislature. Why does the Legislature need a veto for it’s own decision? That’s just unnecessary.
I’m proposing replacing the president’s veto with the Senate’s
That’s literally the main thing they’d have in this model, the veto.
The reason they have it in addition to the courts is because the courts focus more on using it in cases where a law itself breaks established laws, while the Senate could use it for bills that are hypothetically legal but which still cross some other line like say disproportionately burdening indigenous communities or being unjustly against practices of organized labor.
I disagree with a bunch of her proposals simply for the reason that I fundamentally disagree that America should have an elected president.
I believe the 3 branches of government should be the Judiciary, the States, represented by the Senate, and the People, represented by the House.
The Senate isn’t a legislating house, it’s a house that has the choice to veto legislation with a 2/3rds or more vote, led by a Tribune who calls such votes when deemed necessary, if the Senate itself doesn’t override the Tribune with another 2/3rds or more vote.
Critically, the Senate has 27 representatives from each state, 21 from permanently inhabited territories, and 15 from Indigenous Nations and Labor Unions of 5k or more members, and from County level divisions which have larger populations than individual states. Now every small guy in US politics has their interests served by the Senate.
The house is expanded so that every US State gets a number of reps equal to however many times 50k fits into their population, grouped into districts where 5-9 representatives hail from with a proportionate number of constituents. House is led by a Consul and elected cabinet.
The expanded House and Senate will be a lot to wrangle, but the American people will have a far more functional and personally validating selection of leaders and representatives, and that alone will significantly boost satisfaction with and thereby participation in our democracy.
All everyone wants is for there to be at least someone they feel like hears their deal sitting in office, and with these mega districts, odds are fairly good that at least one sitting representative and one sitting senator will be that guy who gets where you’re coming from and assures you your issues are being fought for.
That’s not the system of Government we have in the United States and no one proposing to tear up the Consitution to start a new Government.
You really out here saying that the system of government we have in the United States is a workable system?
The article is literally about changing the system, so why not change the system even more since we know what isn’t working?
Does our system work, absolutely.
Does Trump look for loopholes, absolutely.
I disagree wholely that the system works, necessary change is held up constantly by archaic creaking procedures and the rightful distribution of power has long been parasitically weathered away by the unchained executive ever since Jackson normalized the fiat veto.
Any independent executive will inherently make itself a threat to the sovereignty of the people, because it will inherently seek ways to achieve its agenda whenever it runs up against legislative opposition.
This idea is outdated by 150 years. The Civil War clearly established that the United States is no longer a Confederation of individual states, it’s a Union. We literally say “indivisible” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Senate doesn’t need to exist. Unicameral legislatures are very common in the world today, and they work.
I disagree that the Senate doesn’t need to exist, I think that the hand it currently holds is unbalanced, but being a tool of intervention by small players against the will of the people trampling minority rights is a well justified place in government.
Plus, it’s a 2/3rds plus veto, so it’s only coming down when a large number of those seated across the political spectrum are in agreement that an act of Congress is going too far with something.
I said the Senate doesn’t need to exist because:
Do you disagree with that? It’s true. No country ever moves from unicameral to bicameral because it’s simpler and easier.
There’s already other veto powers: the President and the Supreme Court can both veto the Legislature. Why does the Legislature need a veto for it’s own decision? That’s just unnecessary.
I’m proposing replacing the president’s veto with the Senate’s
That’s literally the main thing they’d have in this model, the veto.
The reason they have it in addition to the courts is because the courts focus more on using it in cases where a law itself breaks established laws, while the Senate could use it for bills that are hypothetically legal but which still cross some other line like say disproportionately burdening indigenous communities or being unjustly against practices of organized labor.