Do we need the EXECUTIVE branch of this government?

[savemefromdumbya]

Do you think we should remove the executive branch totally, instead have a Prime Minister (thst comes with the party like in UK) instead of a President? Could state governments become more autonomous, more devolved power? What needs to happen to the structure of the government? What should happen to remove a tyrannical regime? Answers?

[valerief]

1. Good aim.

[Avalux]

2. The Constitution is not the problem -

And I think the answer lies elsewhere about what to do with tyrannical regimes. The same folks who wrote the Constitution wrote it.

[salin]

8. One-party rule is the problem.

Allows for tyranny.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. and they knew that when they stole 3 elections. This has been in the works

for years. That's why Clinton was so hated. They were to begin this back when he was first elected and he postponed their agenda for 8 years. I wonder when they started buying evoting machine companies?

[BlooInBloo]

13. You give a monkey a gun, and the monkey shoots somebody...

... you don't blame the monkey...

Count me in the camp of blaming the electorate.

I don't believe in getting angry at snakes for biting - that's what snakes do. I don't believe in getting mad at rocks for falling - that's what they do. Similarly I don't get mad a republicans for lying, cheating, stealing, starting wars, fighting for business against people, and the like. That's just what republicans do.

I do blame people for voting for them, however.

You want better politicians? Get a better electorate.

[madokie]

20. I believe that would be an informed electorate

[BlooInBloo]

22. And other things...

... informed, caring, non-bigoted, worldly, educated, non-pessimistic....

But yah - that sorta thing.

[savemefromdumbya]

24. but did they vote for them

one cannot tell if they really did - the machines, the voting fraud. This is what we are up against too?

[BlooInBloo]

26. Enough of em did - that's good enough (bad enough)...

And the ones who don't vote are just as bad...

[savemefromdumbya]

28. but

how does one verify that the voting wasn't corrupt?

[BlooInBloo]

30. I meant...

No matter how much one believes in diebold election stealing stuff, it's not like, say, 80% of the republican tally was faked.

enough people really did vote republican for diebold to make up the rest. That's all I'm sayin.

And in the event that the diebold election stealing stuff is fake, then a majority voted for the evil idiots.

Either way, without a large bigoted, apathetic, illiterate, etc. electorate, diebold wouldn't be an issue.

[newyawker99]

35. Hi BlooInBloo!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[mattclearing]

18. Or parties at all.

What purpose do they serve, other than to dampen the political discourse into an us & them struggle, when it could be an open discussion of (gulp) ideas by individuals?

[sui generis]

3. it's the basic difference between a commonwealth and a republic

maybe between a federation and a republic, loosely defined.

[MadMaddie]

4. The founding fathers forsaw the need to place in the....

constituttion a tool that would allow the country to remove a "tyrannical regime". IMPEACHMENT

<snip>
What should happen to remove a tyrannical regime? Answers?
<snip>

If this * cabal is not removed I think the country will split into two distinct countries.

[jackieMN]

5. GWB Needs To Hit The Road First

I'm just leary that he's going to find a way to stay in power beyond his term, though. I heard that with REX 84-FEMA that if Martial Law is ever enforced, that the Constitution could be suspended, and that that is one way to halt elections and keep whoever is in power in office. Bush has no conscious, as most of us already know, so nothing would surprise me with him. What exactly needs to be done to get rid of him, I'm not sure. But something definitely needs to be done.

[MadMaddie]

6. Martial Law in America...

to have thought about this 6 years ago...

There is going to be a civil war in this country if they are not stopped....

[jackieMN]

21. Could Be

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/FEMA-concentration-camps3sep04.htm What bothers me even more is with all of the hatred going on towards us with other countries, if this ever happens, who would come toour defense? The USA could easily be re-structured, and I think it could happen - but only if we let it. There's alot of info out there, but everyone takes it all for granted, they just can't see it.

[AX10]

7. I've always been a fan of the Parliamentary system.

[Boojatta]

10. There needs to be a President.

Just to conduct warfare competently, it is necessary to have a single person as leader of the executive branch. However, it is not necessary for the executive branch to declare war. In fact, it is unsafe to give one human being the power to declare war.

[savemefromdumbya]

25. and it is particulary unsafe with this Bush at the helm

[BushOut06]

32. Churchill did a pretty good job as PM

Not that I'm advocating the abolishment of the Presidency, I think it does serve a purpose in the overall checks & balances of our system. But to say that you need a president to wage war just doesn't hold too much water.

[Boojatta]

11. Who is responsible for bad decisions by a Defense Minister?

A Prime Minister can say, "Sorry, but I had to appoint someone who was elected and only a few elected representatives had the necessary expertise."

A Defense Minister can say, "Sorry, but I was hoping to be appointed to a different portfolio. I felt that I had a duty to accept the job and do my best. I did my best."

[sandnsea]

12. Keep in mind what was said about FDR

The minority Republican Party was as horrified at the time as we are now. I think it's important to keep that in mind. There will always be quite conflicting views about social law and economic policy. Destroying the constitution isn't the answer.

[savemefromdumbya]

27. We don't need to destroy constitution only exec branch

removing execuitve branch with a large chainsaw until it can behave itself.

[sandnsea]

31. That would be destroying the Constitution

I don't see how it could be interpreted any other way. Although, I truly support giving Bush a permanent paid vacation, kind of like an employee buy-out. He'll still have the title and all, just go on back to Crawford, let Congress run things, we'll call you if we need you.

[savemefromdumbya]

36. trouble is

it isn't just Bush - he's really just a puppet

[rman]

14. We don't need THIS particular government at all

But i'd say we do need government in general, including the executive branch.

[bryant69]

15. I think that consolidating power is not the solution to tyranny

Rather diffusing power. Right now we have a powerful president and a somewhat less powerful Legislative and Judiciary - if you get rid of the President the power that he wields is not going to dissappear, and neither will the potential for tyranny.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[leeroysphitz]

16. Yes. We need an executive arm of government but I don't think

it needs to or was INTENDED to wield the kind of and sort of power it currently enjoys.

[Cleita]

17. I think the Bush Administration has essentially destroyed the

executive branch. What I would like to see is a cabinet elected by Congress with one member acting as President or Speaker of the cabinet for three months at a time. There has to be a figurehead somewhere to represent us as a nation. He doesn't need the power our Presidency has.

[Radio_Guy]

19. Whether parliamentary or not

One thing Bush should do is answer direct questions from elected representatives like Tony Blair has to do. Can you imagine Bush standing there while Kennedy, Conyers, Kerry, etc. blast him with questions? If that had happened in his first term, Kerry would have won in a landslide.

[savemefromdumbya]

29. ITA

needs accountability!

[xxqqqzme]

23. w/ a parliamentary structure 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc parties

would have a voice. Which means even w/o a majority, the party in powere has 2 work w/ the minorities 2 address problems.

[Idioteque]

33. A Parliament is good because people know who to blame...

Polls in the US show that often, people don't know who controlls the Congress. If something bad happens that they don't like, they aren't sure if they should blame the President or the Congress. In the UK, you know if anything goes wrong, it's Labour's fault. There is no distinction between the legislature andf the executive.

The system also tends to be more responsive. If the ruling party is doing a bad job, there is no need for impeachment. 50% of the parliament can vote no confidence which immediatly calls an election. The people then have the choice to keep the same party in charge or boot them out. Compare that to unpopular Senators in the US like Mel Martinez, who have four more years to go. Yuck!

[savemefromdumbya]

37. I think I prefer the British system

[Jack Rabbit]

34. If we had a PM, executive authority would rest in him and his cabinet

Executive simply refers to those who enforce the laws. Somebody has to do that.

About a year ago, I posted a proposed new US Constitution which features a parliamentary system and a figurehead president. It didn't get a lot of response because it was posted the same day the Senate Gang of 14 reached their compromise. I am thinking of putting it up again.

I agree with your idea in the extent that, having lived through the two most absusive Presidents in US history (Nixon and Bush the Frat Boy), presidential government is starting to look like a cancer that need to be removed once and for all.

[savemefromdumbya]

38. sounds good - repost yours

did you?