The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
12th Amendment discussion
R2Keen2
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
On of my friends on myspace posted a bulletin with an interesting idea in it. I definitely thing its worth further exploration.
http://forprez24.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/could-he-bring-balance/
The blog talks about the way in which the united states elects the top two positions of the executive branch, suggesting a change to the current system for the purpose of balance. So I'm throwing my card in, and bring the discussion here. Normally I just browse, but seems like a worthy topic for a first one.
http://forprez24.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/could-he-bring-balance/
The blog talks about the way in which the united states elects the top two positions of the executive branch, suggesting a change to the current system for the purpose of balance. So I'm throwing my card in, and bring the discussion here. Normally I just browse, but seems like a worthy topic for a first one.
R2Keen2 on
0
Posts
It's the Senate. The VP doesn't cast tie-breaking votes in the House.
As for two or three presidents, I think it's worth considering. And it's not like it's unprecedented: the Roman republic had two consuls which served as co-chief executives.
Imagine if we had the system you proposed for the 2004 election, and John Kerry was vice president. And say that at the beginning of 2007, George W. Bush had a heart attack and died.
So, now you've got President Kerry. Thank God he's there to take over, right? Someone who's familiar with the running of the country, the ins and outs of the Executive branch, been intimately involved with cabinet-level people... only, wait, no he hasn't. He hated the idea of George W. Bush being president, and most of the people working for the Executive Branch outside of the Vice President's office hate him. So, they just shut him out of everything they possibly could, and now he's gone from being completely in the dark to being the man in charge overnight. Not only that, but everyone working for him now has a tremendous incentive to undermine him at every opportunity, so his options are to either work with an incredibly hostile Executive Branch, or to fire everyone, and replace them with Democrats who aren't going to know what's going on.
This is to say nothing of the fact that the Presidency is a big job, and having a Vice-President who can do a lot of it for you is very helpful.
It's a drag guys. It's a drag. It isn't cool. Systems like ours need decisive executives just as much as they need deliberative parliamentary branches.
The Argument the blog makes about the need to impeach cheney as much as bush should that event come, is very real to me. I doubt political assassination would really become more frequent under the system as well though i see the concern. Its value in blurring the party line though is part of what makes it good in my mind.
Agreed.
Do you see how I quoted you, there? There was a reason for that. Specifically, I was responding to:
Between those two, the best is obvious. However, I don't see how the proposed system here does anything to make it more the former, and less the latter.
In the election between Gore and Bush the candidates weren't really differing largely many on topics. It seems possible that Gore might have been a decent influence in the cabinet. If the candidates are really as set against each other as Bush and Kerry, theres bound to be issues. However I think after a few years of the system it would breed compromise rather than strong disagreement.
Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's VP and replacement, is a pretty good example of how something like that can go afoul, even with the 12th amendment is in place. He and the Republicans didn't see eye to eye on reconstruction and civil rights issues, so they impeached him for firing a cabinet member.
I mean, it's cute and all that you don't think that Bush and Gore disagreed very much, but they had one very important thing that they disagreed upon, which makes pretty much anything they may have agreed upon totally meaningless: who should be president.
You really, honestly think this administration would have taken Gore in as a part of it, with open arms, welcoming him to the table, listening to his opinion, keeping him informed as to the goings on of the Executive Branch? Or do you think they would have said "break the ties in the Senate, and stay the fuck out of our way?"
I mean, you do realize we already tried this whole "president from one party, VP from the other" thing once already, right? And that the result of that was not compromise, but the 12th amendment?
They also set a record for most overridden vetoes. Unity tickets or similiar situations only work in as much as the Veep isn't given any power or expected to do anything significant beyond running for President 8 years later and some goodwill photo-ops. Reality isn't always so kind.
Yes I am American. I'm not saying they would have taken gore in, but still he could have been present in the cabinet meetings so he wouldn't be completely oblivious if he took over. I do not believe conflict of who should be president would be that much of a issue after the people are sworn in. I've not read anything to suggest that the 12th amendment was crafted for the purpose of having one party in the top two executive positions. It stands to reason that if we were to vote a president into power he guy who should take over in his death would be the second runner up.
There was a lot of argument between Johnson and the Radical Congress but eventually the senate did rule that the law he was impeached on was unconstitutional. The House or Senate not being on the side of the president is part of the balance of power. A president sworn in from the VP position has the right to kick out every cabinet member but i can't imagine they would if the person has proved strong in the position.
Also, protect the space-time continuum. Read the Constitution, people!
This administration has shown itself to hate leaks (unless it's the one doing the leaking). What makes you think they'd invite someone from the other party in to a meeting that had any sort of relevance? Where in the Constitution does it require the President to allow the VP into cabinet meetings? Even if it did, what makes you think that anything discussed at said meetings would be at all relevant? I mean, really, I'd be willing to at least discuss the pros and cons of a divided executive, but to put forth the idea that we should deliberately craft a system whereby the guy who's only duty is to have a heartbeat in case of emergency is someone that the other guy's entire administration hates with a passion--and has a huge incentive to undermine--is a pretty stupid fucking idea.
Adams attended the Cabinet when Washington was president; Jefferson attended Adams, and Cheney attends Bush's. I could probably find others, but the first 2 are really the most relevant. Wikipedia lists Cabinet Rank Administration though I'm not sure where they determine these from, and WhiteHouse.gov suggests that the cabinet is comprised of the vice president and 15 others. It stands to reason that you want the Vice President up to speed on whats happening there if he has to take over, and I'm sure congress would agree if it came down to it.
Perhaps Bush's administration is a poor example just because of how secretive they are. If someone is obstructing the presidents ability to do his job I'd hope there was some law to remove them with backing of congress, but I'd have to look up how that works. The President can remove the entire cabinet no questions asked, but he needs congressional consent to post anyone new.
Yeah, they can just fire the people in charge of all the departments, and hire new ones. Oh, hey, I'm sure that will be a great idea, following the vacating of his office by the previous president, now we have an all-new cabinet that doesn't know what they're doing, to go along with the president who doesn't know what he's doing. Great plan, there.
I agree it would be illogical to fire them all, all at once. But If the VP has access to the cabinet he'd at least have an idea of where they are going. Perhaps thats an issue to add to a change of the amendment. VP access to cabinet meetings. He might not determine the out come of much, but at least he'd have the option of knowing whats going on.
This is to say nothing of the waste of resources that will be a President having to fight not only the legislative branch to get anything done, but also having to fight his own vice-president.
How would you suggest improving the system?
Why does the system need to be changed?
Change nothing? I see potential problems with our government, but none of them stem from this issue. You vote for two people with the potential for the second guy to become the president and I see nothing wrong with that.
Having the primaries allow people to vote for the presidential candidate and vice presidential one as well, with the latter really only being a suggestion and without any forceful power behind it other than the weight of transcribed public opinion.
It can be improved.
The "if it's not broken, don't fix it" mentality is a mentality of mediocrity.
It can be improved by removing the electoral college altogether.
Also, apparently the problem is that the parties have an increasing animosity towards eachother. This problem is a myth, and the solution would cause much more problems then it would fix.
For instance, if Kerry had been able to convince McCain to run with him in 2004, he probably would have handed G.W. his ass.
I suppose, I haven't really thought it out all that well or applied it to historical circumstances. I'm basically just thinking about it in the present sense of loving one of the top 2 candidates, while disliking the other. If I could nudge Biden into the Veep seat I'd be a happy camper.
And straining at gnats while the dam is breaking is a mentality of abject failure.
This system can be improved, yes. Is this the way to improve it, somehow I doubt that. The truth is that we're asking what will happen in case of impeachment when that only happens if the Congress has equal or greater power than that of the executive branch. Presently the Executive Branch has far more power and that is a far far more pressing issue.
People brought up Andrew Johnson, and how he opposed the Republican Congress. What they didn't mention was that Johnson was opposing them by standing by Lincoln's plan. He would have been a very trusted member of the cabinet not it's innate enemy the way Gore would be in Bush's cabinet. The congress at the time was actually far too powerful as they had expelled the opposition party, the Democrats, and had nearly dissolved the Supreme Court, which would have left them without checks and balances.
tl;dr: How best to deal with a rare situation that has been rendered nearly impossible is not a good place to expend lots of energy, tabling it is just fine while people work it around in the back of their mind.