Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

Reforming the Presidency Poll

Presidential Reform Poll  

17 members have voted

  1. 1. Which Reform would you support

    • Make it so that only a president's own party can call for and investigate impeachment.
      0
    • Make it so that a president can be impeached for being incompetent.
    • Eliminating term limits for presidents
    • Holding recall elections for the president every midterm so that an unpopular president can be removed and replaced by the VP
    • Giving the authority to declare war completely to Congress
    • Giving the authority to make treaties and trade deals completely to Congress
    • Making an amendment so that the president can only veto legislation that is unconstitutional rather than vetoing for partisan reasons
    • Making it illegal to use executive orders to bypass Congress
    • Making it required that a president must enforce legislation passed by Congress
    • Limiting the presidency to one term.
    • Giving the authority to nominate Supreme Court justices to Congress.
    • Giving the authority to nominate cabinet members to Congress.
    • Giving the authority to nominate top military personnel to Congress.
    • Giving the authority of pardoning power to Congress.
    • Restricting the VP to only the relatively powerless position described in the US Constitution of presiding over the Senate
    • Allowing a popularly elected president to do whatever he or she wants to do--even if it would be traditionally unconstitutional--so long as the unconstitutional policy was written clearly in the Convention platform.
      0
    • Eliminating the president's ability to fire cabinet people without Congressional approval.
    • Making it illegal for the president to engage in personal attacks
    • Making it so that any president that is elected must surrender their wealth for life in exchange for a $500,000 yearly pension for life, which will be adjusted for inflation.
    • None of the above
      0
  2. 2. Continued

    • A line-item veto so that the president can veto parts of legislation, rather than having to veto an entire bill because of just one part.
    • Make it easier and safer for a cabinet to vote a president unfit without fear of a preemptive firing by the president
    • Allow foreign-born presidents so long as they've lived the majority of their adult years in the US
    • Make it unconstitutional for a president to propose legislation
      0
    • Increase the president's power to include creating legislation
    • Increase the president's power to vetoing Supreme Court decisions
      0
    • Increase the president's power by allowing them to force a Congressional vote if a Speaker or Sen Maj leader is stonewalling a legislative or confirmation vote
    • Decrease the requirement to impeach and convict a president to a simple majority
    • Cap the max age for a presidential nominee to 70, 75, or 80.
    • Cap the min age for a presidential nominee to 40, 45, or 50.
    • Require presidents to go through a transparent mental health and physical health screening every year by a non-partisan, independent doctor.
    • Making blatant lying by a president as an impeachable offense under the offense "Lying under oath". In this case, the oath of office.
    • Make it illegal for the president to intervene in any way in a congressional or independent investigation, including the use of rhetoric to turn public opinion away from the investigation.
    • Restrict presidential vacation days to 2 weeks per year with all money spent for this vacation coming out of the presidential salary.
    • Allow the president to call for referendum as a means to push Congress to create laws desired by the people.
    • Make the presidency into a co-presidency, with the winning nominee and losing nominee both holding the presidency. The losing nominee operates as a VP, but the positions switch if his party holds both houses of Congress at midterms.
      0
    • Allow the presidents to handle all foreign affairs unilaterally without Congressional approval
      0
    • Make it unconstitutional for the president to give preference to their own religion while in office, either through action or rhetoric.
    • Reduce the presidency completely to a mostly symbolic office that merely has the task of signing bills passed by congress and nothing more.
      0
    • None of the above
  3. 3. Continued

    • Make it a requirement that presidential nominees must make an income of within $25,000 of the average American annual income for an individual person.
    • Make it a requirement that the president has the same healthcare and other benefits of the average American.
    • Make it a requirement that the presidential nominee has earned a 1 million dollar or more.
      0
    • Make it a requirement that the presidential nominee has a PhD.
      0
    • Make it a requirement that the president can only appoint people to offices that are at their highest level of expertise (Thus Ben Carson at health rather than HUD; no non-scientists to environmental positions, etc).
    • Make it so that if a president wants to declare war, that they must personally lead the troops in battle, risking their own life with their men.
    • Make it so that the Department heads can operate independently of the president without repercussion.
    • Allow the president to abolish or create cabinet departments without Congressional approval.
    • Allow the president to fire their VP and replace them at any time.
    • Allow the President to raise the VP to a cabinet level position and to delegate any powers of the presidency to the VP if he or she chooses.
    • Allow the President to veto legislation passed by state governments
    • Expand the power of executive orders beyond the executive branch.
      0
    • Other (list the reform you'd like to see in the comments below)
    • None of the above.


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

New poll. 

I think a single-person Presidential office has become too abused, concentrates too much executive power in a worrisome way, and with the "winner takes all" election method, you often get a person who barely holds the support of half the nation firmly being considered solidly THE "national leader, representative of the nation abroad, commander-in-chief of the entire armed forces, the nominator of all high executive appointments, and often the guide of legislative initiative." This highly distorted. I think a Federal Council, like Switzerland has, should form a collective Presidium (the proper term for a Presidential office held collectively), with five or seven member, elected by major U.S. regions (New England, Deep South, Pacific Coast, Midwest, Great Plains, or what have you). I will have a better at your list a bit later, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Patine said:

I think a single-person Presidential office has become too abused, concentrates too much executive power in a worrisome way, and with the "winner takes all" election method, you often get a person who barely holds the support of half the nation firmly being considered solidly THE "national leader, representative of the nation abroad, commander-in-chief of the entire armed forces, the nominator of all high executive appointments, and often the guide of legislative initiative." This highly distorted. I think a Federal Council, like Switzerland has, should form a collective Presidium (the proper term for a Presidential office held collectively), with five or seven member, elected by major U.S. regions (New England, Deep South, Pacific Coast, Midwest, Great Plains, or what have you). I will have a better at your list a bit later, though.

I like that idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for limiting the Presidency to one term, but ideally it would be a 6 year term. I'd rather have Presidents focus on doing their actual job instead of focusing on running for reelection after just two years in office.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jnewt said:

I voted for limiting the Presidency to one term, but ideally it would be a 6 year term. I'd rather have Presidents focus on doing their actual job instead of focusing on running for reelection after just two years in office.

 

The counter-argument is that the president has to work hard to be a good president to be reelected. I'd agree to a 6-term president if every two years there's a recall vote on the midterm ballots. If 50% of voters say "Yes" to recall then the VP takes over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was surprised by how few of these I supported.

I trust the President little.

I trust the People less.

And I trust Congress least of all.

In the end, our current system of checks and balances is mostly better than these proposals.  Our only real problem is the unwillingness of the current checkers and balances to actually do any checking and balancing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I was surprised by how few of these I supported.

I trust the President little.

I trust the People less.

And I trust Congress least of all.

In the end, our current system of checks and balances is mostly better than these proposals.  Our only real problem is the unwillingness of the current checkers and balances to actually do any checking and balancing.

Yeah, and we might need punishments for failing to check and balance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, and we might need punishments for failing to check and balance. 

We do -- elections.

Alas, the voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, I think the Presidency has too much power, so I voted for some of those powers to be reduced.

I also have no problem with a foreign-born President.

When it comes to term limits, I had a professor a long time ago who voiced his opinion about them, and I've since come to agree with him.  I prefer 12 years for any federally-elected office, meaning 6 House terms, 2 Senate terms or 3 Presidential terms.  There would be term limits, but they would be equal across the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reinstitute the checks and balances laid out in the Constitution by reigning in the power of the executive and the courts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the only things that got majority support are allowing foreign-born presidents, allowing presidents to call referendums, and giving strong protections to cabinet members so that they can declare presidents unfit if they need to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you guys approve a line-item veto? It's a scam that will just create more gridlock in congress (GOP and Dems co-operate for once and pass a reform that adds things that both sides like as a compromise, but then a GOP or Dem POTUS could strip everything their party didn't want in the first place, and since it requires a big majority to override, passing bipartisan laws would be useless.

Someone please tell me this isn't what would happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Why would you guys approve a line-item veto? It's a scam that will just create more gridlock in congress (GOP and Dems co-operate for once and pass a reform that adds things that both sides like as a compromise, but then a GOP or Dem POTUS could strip everything their party didn't want in the first place, and since it requires a big majority to override, passing bipartisan laws would be useless.

Someone please tell me this isn't what would happen.

In my state government class, we talked about a specific instance in which a Governor used his line-item veto to remove individual letters within words from a bill to add a completely new appropriation. I forget what it was for or what state it was in, but the Governor was able to appropriate funds to something he wanted (and that the legislature never truly approved) by removing individual letters (and thus creating new words). (I believe whatever state this was in reformed this so you can no longer remove individual letters to create new words.) If this was instituted at the federal level, Trump would easily be able to follow through on his campaign promises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jnewt said:

In my state government class, we talked about a specific instance in which a Governor used his line-item veto to remove individual letters within words from a bill to add a completely new appropriation. I forget what it was for or what state it was in, but the Governor was able to appropriate funds to something he wanted (and that the legislature never truly approved) by removing individual letters (and thus creating new words). (I believe whatever state this was in reformed this so you can no longer remove individual letters to create new words.) If this was instituted at the federal level, Trump would easily be able to follow through on his campaign promises.

I think Trump's command of the language is that good, given the way he speaks, but I see the problem in a larger and more generic sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar, @SilentLiberty, @Rodja

6 minutes ago, jnewt said:

In my state government class, we talked about a specific instance in which a Governor used his line-item veto to remove individual letters within words from a bill to add a completely new appropriation. I forget what it was for or what state it was in, but the Governor was able to appropriate funds to something he wanted (and that the legislature never truly approved) by removing individual letters (and thus creating new words). (I believe whatever state this was in reformed this so you can no longer remove individual letters to create new words.) If this was instituted at the federal level, Trump would easily be able to follow through on his campaign promises.

 

1 hour ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Why would you guys approve a line-item veto? It's a scam that will just create more gridlock in congress (GOP and Dems co-operate for once and pass a reform that adds things that both sides like as a compromise, but then a GOP or Dem POTUS could strip everything their party didn't want in the first place, and since it requires a big majority to override, passing bipartisan laws would be useless.

Someone please tell me this isn't what would happen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar @jnewt @darkmoon72 @jvikings1 @ThePotatoWalrus and anyone else who later comments, I still stand by my idea of a Federal Council as a collective head-of-state with each member being required to be from a different major of the nation, than a highly abused singular President, for the reasons I  detailed, among others.

 

On ‎10‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 1:36 PM, Patine said:

I think a single-person Presidential office has become too abused, concentrates too much executive power in a worrisome way, and with the "winner takes all" election method, you often get a person who barely holds the support of half the nation firmly being considered solidly THE "national leader, representative of the nation abroad, commander-in-chief of the entire armed forces, the nominator of all high executive appointments, and often the guide of legislative initiative." This highly distorted. I think a Federal Council, like Switzerland has, should form a collective Presidium (the proper term for a Presidential office held collectively), with five or seven member, elected by major U.S. regions (New England, Deep South, Pacific Coast, Midwest, Great Plains, or what have you). I will have a better at your list a bit later, though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

@vcczar @jnewt @darkmoon72 @jvikings1 @ThePotatoWalrus and anyone else who later comments, I still stand by my idea of a Federal Council as a collective head-of-state with each member being required to be from a different major of the nation, than a highly abused singular President, for the reasons I  detailed, among others.

 

 

I would agree to a council. 

4 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

My idea of the line item veto would not be to change the language. It would be for the president to veto parts of a bill that he or she deems unconstitutional or against the will of the people that elected him or her, preferably for the first reason. 

This way if Congress just tacks on something stupid just so they hope it rides the rest of the otherwise great bill, then the president can remove it. 

I'd like to set some limitation on it, so it isn't like that example of rewriting the bill. It will also make Congress much more careful in the bill they propose. 

It's funny because the line item veto is a Ronald Reagan supported idea and became popular because of him. It's one of the few things that he suggested that I agree with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

@vcczar @jnewt @darkmoon72 @jvikings1 @ThePotatoWalrus and anyone else who later comments, I still stand by my idea of a Federal Council as a collective head-of-state with each member being required to be from a different major of the nation, than a highly abused singular President, for the reasons I  detailed, among others.

 

 

That was actually an idea debated during the constitutional convention.  I find it intriguing as it would provide voices from different regions of the country (which the federalist system was designed to do in the first place).  This would also make it more difficult for the executive to assume power over the other brances (especially Congress).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

@vcczar @jnewt @darkmoon72 @jvikings1 @ThePotatoWalrus and anyone else who later comments, I still stand by my idea of a Federal Council as a collective head-of-state with each member being required to be from a different major of the nation, than a highly abused singular President, for the reasons I  detailed, among others.

20191010_172817.thumb.jpg.bb799fcdef2ee78c2053da18e8353aa3.jpg

Ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

20191010_172817.thumb.jpg.bb799fcdef2ee78c2053da18e8353aa3.jpg

Ok

And how is my idea inherently "liberal?" I don't see "liberals" in the world espousing collective-heads-of-state to stop singular executive abuse more often than "conservatives." In fact, it's a very rare idea that is highly underrepresented in any mainstream ideology in the world. So, explain your comment please, or reprise your dunce cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

20191010_172817.thumb.jpg.bb799fcdef2ee78c2053da18e8353aa3.jpg

Ok

In fact, the concept of a collective, regionally-representative head-of-state role to limit executive abuse and unrepresentative leadership in a singular office is far closer to a Libertarian idea, by construed, pure philosophy, than either Liberal or Conservative. And don't YOU always claim to ideologically be a staunch Libertarian (if not voting for the Third Party)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

In fact, the concept of a collective, regionally-representative head-of-state role to limit executive abuse and unrepresentative leadership in a singular office is far closer to a Libertarian idea, by construed, pure philosophy, than either Liberal or Conservative. And don't YOU always claim to ideologically be a staunch Libertarian (if not voting for the Third Party)?

Yeah but tbh I just wanted to get you to quote a pic of me in a bathtub.

The idea is an interesting one for sure, but I think regardless of the efficiency and logic behind the system, the US, behind one of the most tradition and culturally prideful nations in the world, would never, ever amend the Constitution that drastically. Personally I prefer a single figurehead for situations like war and for the need of a formal head of state, (Switzerland, as you like to quote, does indeed have a council of sorts, but still has their own head of state as well), I'd support a government system where a council handles domestic issues and a head of state handles foreign policy, but if you really think about it, that's the current system that the US has right now (in theory)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

but if you really think about it, that's the current system that the US has right now (in theory)

In theory, yes. But, from FDR onward, without exception, U.S. Presidents have gotten more individually powerful, more capable of abusing their office without prevention or consequence, viewed as decision-makers and leaders in popular perception, domestically and abroad, far in excess to what their office is supposed to have (case and point - a lot of younger Europeans belief Trump and Putin are both Constitutionally ENTITLED to the same amount of power within their respective nations), and immunity to criminal and civil consequences, de facto, in a way enjoyed by old nobility and monarchs, and not appropriate at all for the head of a republic, and no one who was able has stopped or halted this escalation in power. Also, the socio-political landscape of the nation means no single U.S. President TRULY represents the NATION abroad or in government leadership - except in pure Constitutional fiat - they have, since the end of the Reagan era, only ever represented slightly more or slightly less than half the population, which isn't REALLY a strong mandate of support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Patine said:

In theory, yes. But, from FDR onward, without exception, U.S. Presidents have gotten more individually powerful, more capable of abusing their office without prevention or consequence, viewed as decision-makers and leaders in popular perception, domestically and abroad, far in excess to what their office is supposed to have (case and point - a lot of younger Europeans belief Trump and Putin are both Constitutionally ENTITLED to the same amount of power within their respective nations), and immunity to criminal and civil consequences, de facto, in a way enjoyed by old nobility and monarchs, and not appropriate at all for the head of a republic, and no one who was able has stopped or halted this escalation in power. Also, the socio-political landscape of the nation means no single U.S. President TRULY represents the NATION abroad or in government leadership - except in pure Constitutional fiat - they have, since the end of the Reagan era, only ever represented slightly more or slightly less than half the population, which isn't REALLY a strong mandate of support.

Ngl that was a really great paragraph in support of your ideas. Thanks for not name dropping me in a personal attack 😂

I'd agree in saying there could be a way to add more checks on Presidential power, or at least enforce them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jnewt said:

In my state government class, we talked about a specific instance in which a Governor used his line-item veto to remove individual letters within words from a bill to add a completely new appropriation. I forget what it was for or what state it was in, but the Governor was able to appropriate funds to something he wanted (and that the legislature never truly approved) by removing individual letters (and thus creating new words). (I believe whatever state this was in reformed this so you can no longer remove individual letters to create new words.) If this was instituted at the federal level, Trump would easily be able to follow through on his campaign promises.

Sounds like a poorly implemented line-item veto law.  The way it's supposed to work is that the new bill, with the vetoed lines excised, goes back to the legislature for vote with no amendments allowed.  It has to get a majority vote in its finalized form to become law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...