Balance of Power

[Resha Caner]

I assume most are familiar with the idea of governmental checks & balances: veto, referendum, impeachment, judicial review, budget allocation, etc.

But is there a check you think is missing that should be added?

 

[chevyontheriver]

I assume most are familiar with the idea of governmental checks & balances: veto, referendum, impeachment, judicial review, budget allocation, etc.

But is there a check you think is missing that should be added?

I think Supreme Court decisions should require at least a 6 to 3 majority instead of just 5 to 4. The 5 to 4 vote is just too narrow.

 

[Tree of Life]

I think Supreme Court decisions should require at least a 6 to 3 majority instead of just 5 to 4. The 5 to 4 vote is just too narrow.

This would lead to many cases ending in a "tie". We might as well have 8 justices at this point. The reason we have 9 is to avoid the situation of the tie. If a case cannot be decided by the Supreme Court, then what happens? The lower court's rulings are upheld? That's always a defacto win for the lower courts.

 

[chevyontheriver]

This would lead to many cases ending in a "tie". We might as well have 8 justices at this point. The reason we have 9 is to avoid the situation of the tie. If a case cannot be decided by the Supreme Court, then what happens? The lower court's rulings are upheld? That's always a defacto win for the lower courts.

I know. Not perfect. And yet I would like Supreme Court decisions to be more than the narrow decisions they often are, subject to a different outcome depending on the way the wind blows.

 

[Sparagmos]

I assume most are familiar with the idea of governmental checks & balances: veto, referendum, impeachment, judicial review, budget allocation, etc.

But is there a check you think is missing that should be added?

Money in politics - as long as politicians can be bought we don’t have an effective democracy.

 

[Ophiolite]

I assume most are familiar with the idea of governmental checks & balances: veto, referendum, impeachment, judicial review, budget allocation, etc.

But is there a check you think is missing that should be added?

Random assassination of elected politicians. This would tend to encourage participation of only those individuals who were genuinely concerned with the best interests of their constituents rather than the content of their pockets.

 

[Arcangl86]

This would lead to many cases ending in a "tie". We might as well have 8 justices at this point. The reason we have 9 is to avoid the situation of the tie. If a case cannot be decided by the Supreme Court, then what happens? The lower court's rulings are upheld? That's always a defacto win for the lower courts.

I actually think having an equal amount of Justices is a good thing. Any kind of lasting change to the law should be decided by a consensus of the Court, not a slim one person majority. And a tie is no more a de facto win then the Supreme Court refusing to take up a case in the first place.

 

[jacks]

I think we have a good balance now. Too many and nothing would get done.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I think we have a good balance now. Too many and nothing would get done.

There is a move afoot to add several justices to the Supreme Court.

 

[Knee V]

There is a check which was removed that I would like to see restored, which is the check resulting from the House and Senate representing both two distinct groups and two distinct ideas of what it means for a state to be a state, which was accomplished by the Senate being chosen by the respective state legislatures. We should let the state governments have a say in federal legislation so as to allow state governments to check the federal government, and also allow the state governments to more effectively check popular mood swings in the House.

 

[Knee V]

There is a move afoot to add several justices to the Supreme Court.

I don't like that at all. If anything I would drop the number back down to seven.

 

[Scholastica]

For the record, the US has had anywhere from 6 to 10 Supreme Court Justices. President Abraham Lincoln rather famously added the tenth justice to ensure his war policies could pass legal scrutiny, and Congress then lowered it to seven after he died to prevent President Andrew Johnson from nominating a any new justices as they retired during his term.

 

[Arcangl86]

Honestly, I would love to see the Supreme Court become a court with a rotating bench, which there is nothing to prevent. Simply have every Chief Circuit Judge sit on the SCOTUS during their time as Chief Judge, and that way there is always movement on the SCOTUS bench.

 

[jayem]

Money in politics - as long as politicians can be bought we don’t have an effective democracy.

Yes. At least an amendment to abrogate the Citizen's United decision.

But also, a check on gerrymandering. Congressional districts should be drawn so that each House member represents as equal a number of constituents as possible. This would not require an amendment. Just an act of Congress. The Constitution gives the manner of choosing members of Congress to the states. But it also gives Congress the power to alter how Congresspersons are chosen.

Article I, Section 4:
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

 

[Arcangl86]

Yes. At least an amendment to abrogate the Citizen's United decision.

But also, a check on gerrymandering. Congressional districts should be drawn so that each House member represents as equal a number of constituents as possible. This would not require an amendment. Just an act of Congress. The Constitution gives the manner of choosing members of Congress to the states. But it also gives Congress the power to alter how Congresspersons are chosen.

Article I, Section 4:
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

Congress has the power to eliminate districts altogether, or theoretically to draw the districts themselves. The issue with gerrymandering isn't districts being unequal in size, but rather how the districts are drawn to either dilute or concentrate votes towards a certain party.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I would outlaw political parties altogether.

 

[jayem]

Congress has the power to eliminate districts altogether, or theoretically to draw the districts themselves. The issue with gerrymandering isn't districts being unequal in size, but rather how the districts are drawn to either dilute or concentrate votes towards a certain party.

I agree completely. I probably wasn't clear. Districts should be established only by population and sensible geography without regard to political affiliation, socioeconomic status, or any other factors.

 

[Arcangl86]

I agree completely. I probably wasn't clear. Districts should be established only by population and sensible geography without regard to political affiliation, socioeconomic status, or any other factors.

Oh ok. Honestly, I believe that we should eliminate districts altogether and elect our congressional delegation by means of proportional representation.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Oh ok. Honestly, I believe that we should eliminate districts altogether and elect our congressional delegation by means of proportional representation.

That would eliminate a check rather than add one. The Constitution would have to be re written to accept political parties as the basis of government, Rather than just being tolerated through neglecting to outlaw them , they would become Constitutionally mandated and essential to governance. That would most likely increase the oligarchical nature of the present two party system structure and make it permanent and impervious to any future desire by the populace to change that structure. Currently that system is merely an overlay that could be changed at any time the public desired it to change.
Currently a district votes for the person they prefer to represent their interests and as the constituents of that person they hold a great deal of influence over that person as they can remove that person form office by voting that person out. Under proportional representation no one's individual or group interests are of any concern to the representative other than the need to please the leaders of the party to remain in office. Voters have no recourse for removing a representative they find unacceptable as voters did not place that representative there the party did. .

 

[MorkandMindy]

Money in politics - as long as politicians can be bought we don’t have an effective democracy.

I think you've got it there!

I think it's called lobbying and when you look at the 'benefits' lobbyists provide to members of Congress you can see a clear link between those benefits and keeping certain areas very profitable.

Congress is bought, and often other parts of government as well, Dick Cheney and Halliburton...