Restructure the US Government

[Philjia]

There are a few things that could help the US government function better.

1. Stop using the Supreme Court to make de facto constitutional amendments and start using Article 5 properly.
2. Stop the Supreme Court from being a stick to beat your opponents with by making the selection process for justices be more bipartisan and/or bureaucratic.
3. Switch to instant runoff popular vote for presidential elections.
4. Make the president less powerful anyway.
5. Elect at least one of the houses by proportional representation.
6. Make it illegal to be Mitch McConnell. (This won't really help, the idea just amuses me.)

[Ifreann]

Tell it to Jim, he's the one who wants to shrink America.

Incorrect. That's the strawman du jour. I want to shrink the government, not the nation.

Same thing. Shrink the government back to only governing the 13 colonies it started with.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I would keep it largely the same, maybe give more powers to the states and reduce the size of the executive branch. I generally like the American system of federalism.

If I wanted to get creative, I would establish the Christian Church in America and have baptism be a requirement for citizenship, along with monthly attendance in a Church being a requirement for enfranchisemant and public office. The "CCA" would be more organizational than ecclesiastical, since there's no way American Christians could be put in a single Church under one authority.

How about no. If that were implemented, more than 30% of Americans would lose their right to vote.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Tell it to Jim, he's the one who wants to shrink America.

Incorrect. That's the strawman du jour. I want to shrink the government, not the nation.

So... just leave the other two thirds of the country in lawless anarchy or let a 21st century multi-racial populace be governed exclusively under native American laws and customs or by the Mexican government? Any way you look at this, it's still stupid.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Theocracy is even worse than the corporatocracy we already have.

I'd rather not, thanks.

Under the proposed system, you would be free to hold such an opinion. It's a pretty soft theocracy, since membership is not mandatory and nonmemership is not punished.

If I can't vote, it aint soft.

[Claorica]

I'd consolidate the states into 13 Commonwealths, like in Fallout, but there one would be one legislative body that legislates with equal sufferage for each commonwealth and the chief executive would be elected by the members of that body. The federal government would only have authority on things such as trade between the commonealths(not the far-more-encompassing idea of all "interstate commerce"), currency, intelligence/espionage/counterintelligence/counterespionage, defense, foreign affairs, and certain federal law enforcement, with all the other powers would go to the various commonwealths, which would have governments structured similarly to the current federal government, having electoral-college-based systems to elect their governors and having both a equal suffrage for every state legislature and a legislature decided on population. They would further devolve their powers to the states, running similarly to how they do now except some states would be balkanized and other states would be consolidated, as well as they would only be required to have one legislature that's one man, one vote, they would be allowed to have legislatures similar to the senate.

The states would still have full sovereignty over their subordinate powers, such as counties and cities, and would devolve powers to them as they saw fit.

[Ardenesia]

So how would you Restructure the US Government either with or without the current Branches

There's no fixing the corrupt, bureaucratic cancer that is the US government. I would not 'restructure' it at all, especially not into a monarchy. I'd abolish it and establish a single-party fascist state instead.

Fascist states are pretty corrupt and bureaucratic themselves.

[Genivaria]

I would keep it largely the same, maybe give more powers to the states and reduce the size of the executive branch. I generally like the American system of federalism.

If I wanted to get creative, I would establish the Christian Church in America and have baptism be a requirement for citizenship, along with monthly attendance in a Church being a requirement for enfranchisemant and public office. The "CCA" would be more organizational than ecclesiastical, since there's no way American Christians could be put in a single Church under one authority.

I would establish the Christian Church in America

have baptism be a requirement for citizenship

along with monthly attendance in a Church being a requirement for enfranchisemant and public office

How to get your national church bombed in 3 easy steps.

[Chernoslavia]

I'd restructure it into either an Islamic government or a Theodemocracy

No thank you.

[Chernoslavia]

The American government definitely needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up. The way I'd do it is probably a Parliamentary Republic: a symbolic President that does literally nothing except greet diplomats and promulgate shit, the Prime Minister who is basically the overseer of his cabinet, and adopt a Westminster system. I'd also redo the Constitution, and maybe explicitly say in the new one that "it should be interpreted according to the conditions of today, not of when it was drafted."

But realistically, it's never going to happen, because inertia, and also because America hasn't yet tried everything else.

Uh no, fuck no.

America doesn't need to try anything else we just need to get rid of all the corrrupt politicians and unconstitutional laws.

[Francoli]

There are a few things that could help the US government function better.

1. Stop using the Supreme Court to make de facto constitutional amendments and start using Article 5 properly.
2. Stop the Supreme Court from being a stick to beat your opponents with by making the selection process for justices be more bipartisan and/or bureaucratic.
3. Switch to instant runoff popular vote for presidential elections.
4. Make the president less powerful anyway.
5. Elect at least one of the houses by proportional representation.
6. Make it illegal to be Mitch McConnell. (This won't really help, the idea just amuses me.)

1. No
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Uhhh

Amendments would be basically impossible politically and the future is coming at a fast pace which will require flexible reform and overhaul of how we think about the law. Having fewer, more neutral/moderate, and more experienced minds deciding on amendments would be more beneficial than a large number of partisan hacks.

[Kazarogkai]

This is from another forum entirely but nonetheless I imagine it fits here reasonably well.

Personal Thoughts and Philosophy

Looking at it from a Layman's perspective I have observed over the course of the history of Republics and to a lesser degree general government to put it more broadly a.. Conflict of sorts if you will. The conflict in question relates toward the twin poles which lie on either side of a scale. The interests of the Minority and the Majority. Like many things if one side leans to far the results are rather plain to see, tyranny and cruelty and eventual chaos. Tyranny by the majority(Ochlocracy) I can assure you is no less unjust than one by the few(oligarchy) or at it's most the depraved the one(despotism)

And the cycle continues on and on until eventually, a balance is struck. How it is achieved depends on the time and place. How long this lasts can vary but from what I have read and what I have learned it depends typically on the time and place.

Finding a way to achieve this balance and maintain it has been something that those who care to think about it have been struggling with for a while. From Plato all the way to lock and beyond. The question is how does one balance the interests of both the 51% and the 49% while maintaining the ultimate value that is Justice, which is the greatest of all.

To go off on a tangent one might ask, why is justice the greatest value? Because unlike so many other values Justice is one of only a handful from which excess is always a positive. To put in another way there is no such thing as too much justice unlike say liberty, which can lead to chaos and potential tyranny, or equality, which can lead to stagnation and lack of innovation. Justice is beautiful and justice is good, arguably one of the few that from culture to culture is pretty universal. The only real important to keep in mind is, what is justice? But that's a topic for another discussion.

Now onto the main topic. How does one achieve and maintain the balance in question? Making use of a laymans knowledge the solution that seems to me as the greatest at the very least in terms creating the balance is the form of government we refer to as a Republic. One might ask what do I mean when I say "Republic" for the term is rather... loaded and can seemingly vary from person to person. In this case though the definition I use is more or less the classical one from antiquity, that being:

a mixed form of government that combines elements of various government forms with the ultimate goal being to combine the good attributes of said government forms into one in hopes to prevent their respective degeneration's. The typical mixture known is the trifecta of Democracy(Ochlocracy), Aristocracy(oligarchy), and finally Monarchy(despotism).

In this case I call for a sightly different mixture, with all due respect to great minds of yonder of course. The simple is as such. I consider Monarchy and Aristocracy coming from the same line more or less, aka minority interest, and hence having both to me will result in an over abundance of said side leading to imbalance. Something I'm trying to prevent. The mixture in question I call for is accordingly a dual mixture of Democracy and Aristocracy. The first secures the interests of the Majority, latter the interests of the Minority. The end result? Hopefully balance and a lasting one at that.

Onto the specifics of how such a thing should work, I have a few ideas and well would like to air them out as I mentioned before. To be quick about it and give you the short version of the tale what I propose is the creation of a biparty-system along similar lines envisioned by John Calvin with one body representing a more or less hyper democratic body and one representing hyper aristocracy. The overall goal is the creation of a fairest system that I have come up with; that being a system which ensures majority rule while simultaneously ensuring minority rights and by that balances the interest of both thereby protecting them from the excesses of the other. With that in mind the first body as such would be granted both the powers of a legislative and an executive, to make and enforce law, at the same time the second body would have the powers of the judiciary, being able to interpret those laws.

The Forums

To further elaborate on the nature of the first as I mentioned before it would be a Hyper democratic body, how such a thing is to be achieved I'm not perfectly sure. Direct democracy is a hard and arguably unfeasible thing outside of rather small societies like say a city state and as such would be rather unfeasible in the more larger nation states that we have developed. How such a thing would work if implemented under my system though would probably be in the form taken by the socialist communes of Israel. The kibbutz. To put it simply the community as a whole would gather every once in a while(say a week or two) and would vote on various issues facing the community thereby exercising legislative power. Executive power would in turn be exercised via a small council chosen by said assembly to execute the laws set forth by them.

In contrast in a much larger society something along the lines of a representative democracy organized on confederate lines with the most power being granted to the smallest/most democratic body(municipal) and the minimal(military,foreign affairs) being granted to the larger bodies. Basically something akin to syndicalism and it's family tree system could work in this regard. That's just my brief thoughts on that part anyways.

The Tribunes

For the second body the goal is from the onset the creation of a body whose task will be ensuring minority rights and with that their interests are protected from attempts by the majority of stripping them away. By that nature it will not be a body which is meant to be beholden to democratic and especially partisan influences in general for said interests are already ensured by the former body more than adequately. Hence appointment and elections are out as a methodology. Instead the system I propose and the one that is the topic of this thread is Sortition. Specifically Sortition from eligible members of the Judiciary. So with that In mind let me continue by elaborating on this along with the structure of the system in question.

So one might ask what will be the nature of this body? Well as mentioned before this would broadly speaking have the powers known by Montesquieu as those subscribed to a Judiciary that being the power to interpret the laws of the nation. The actual structure will overall be rather similar to the former body albeit designed to be in a sense a more hierarchical with those above having greater and greater powers depending on the levels they are on. With that the system itself will be comprised of various levels of what will be termed tribunes the most organized into a pyramid. At the bottom are the Municipal Tribunes which will function as courts of first instance, simultaneously at the top will be what will be known as the National Tribunes will function as courts of last resort, the remainder in the center(local,state,regional,etc) will function as the courts of appeal for Tribunes immediately preceding them. Said tribunes will be further divided up based on the different forms/aspects of law that they focus on these will be but will not be limited to: Constitutional, Criminal, Civil, Family, Commerce, and Military law.

With the exception of the Constitutional Tribunes which will be "fixed" tribunes are not technically permanent standing bodies but only formed and whose members only serve on a semi-as needed basis. The members who comprise these bodies are derived from pools encompassing the areas mentioned(municipal,local,state,regional,national) from what are known as Archons and Jurists. These two types of individuals are similar but different at the same time with Archons being Scholars of Law in general and Jurists being Scholars of more humanistic pursuits like say liberal arts and philosophy and to a degree an advocate. On a Tribune they will have slightly different functions depending on what stage of a trial the Tribune is in. Within the inquisitive stage the Archons will be the voting members with the Jurist functioning in an advisory role in a as needed basis. In contrasts at the sentencing stage they will actually become voting members with the ultimate idea being they are there so that not only the rule of law is preserved but the spirit is too.

The actual numbers of members of a Tribune will vary mind you depending on the level of Tribune, lower Tribunes have smaller numbers than higher Tribunes. For example Municipal Tribunes may be comprised of 12 members while National Tribunes will be composed of say 60 members. To compose these Tribunes said Archons and Jurists will be chosen from the aforementioned pools based on what level the case is currently in via sortition from all eligible members. They will serve until the completion of said Tribunes tenure, the length of the trial/case. The exception to this rule are the aforementioned Constitutional Tribunes whose members are again chosen by sortition but who serve a single fixed term of about 1-3 years only being eligible to return to that specific body after all other eligible have had a chance.

The qualifications to become a Archon or a Jurist are simple. In the case of both one must have a doctorate in the respective fields applying to what ever they are pursing. In the case of Jurist it has to be a degree pertaining to philosophy or liberal arts or some other degree focused on the humanities. For Archons they need a degree in Law. Now onto where things differ. In the case of the Archons they simply need to declare themselves upon completing of their degrees a legal scholar and upon doing so will be registered on the Municipal pool of Archons where they live in by their fellow Archons. In the case of Jurists they need something a bit different. Upon completing their degree they can if they wish declare themselves a legal scholar also but said position has no particular power on it's own until they gain what are known as followers. In a similar manner to the goðar of the Icelandic Commonwealth the Jurist must gain followers who agree to be represented by them within the tribune whenever they are involved in such matters.

Mind you something to make mention of before I go on I made mention that Jurists sit on the Tribunes as somewhat of equals to the Archons and are called on an as needed basis. The way that works is as such. When a trial begins in it's inquisitive stage from the get go their is automatically going to be atleast 1 Jurist that being the Jurist representing the aggrieved party(assuming there is one). When a suspect is found during the inquisitive stage the Jurist representing them will soon after join the tribune for as long as the person remains as such unless they become regarded as the potential guilty at which point they will be a permanent fixture just like the last Jurist. Any additional Jurist, known as neutrals, can be called upon to serve on the tribune their quantity being at the minimum required to be equal to half the number of current sitting Archons on the Tribune not counting the first two. They are for the most part chosen on a voluntary basis with confirmation being affirmed by the sitting members of the Tribune. If not enough volunteers can be solicited though then sortition can be used to gain more.

Now with that finished how exactly will this system play out and work? To put it in simple terms lets say you are the aggrieved party and want Justice so what do you do? You find a local Archon and you must get them to a agree to hear your case. If said Archon thinks said case has merit they will give their signature of approval. If not then you needed worry, you simply have to find another. A preliminary Tribune can only be formed once you have gained enough Archons to fill the necessary Tribune. So in the case of a Municipal Tribune(court of first instance) you need say 12 Archons. These Archons will then deliberate on whether the Case is of merit and worthy to be seen before a proper Tribune, not on who is guilty or not. If they say yes then they can make their way to the local court house whereby they can initiate a Selection Ceremony. This Selection Ceremony will be where the Sortition is made in the first place with all Archons present in the Municipal Pool, who are not currently serving in a tribune, having their names dropped in the proverbial hat. Upon the completion of this letters of action will be sent to each of the 12 Archons whose names where chosen and they will appear at the court house as soon as possible. In order to prevent Corruption and to protect them from retaliation said Archons names will not be known with their identities concealed.

The same will be true of the neutral Jurists. The trial will henceforth commence in a manner resembling the current one until the Tribune decides to make a verdict of guilty, not guilty, or not proven. In the case of a guilty verdict the Prosecuted may appeal to a higher Tribune, in the case of not guilty the Prosecutor may appeal to a higher Tribune, in the case of a verdict of not proven then they both may appeal for a retrial. If the verdict of guilty is made though the Tribune will adjourn until a certain deadline has been passed for appeals unless it was by a National Tribune at which point appeals are not possible. Regardless the Tribune in question will re adjourn and come together in what will be termed a sentencing Tribune where justice will be meted out. The Jurists, whose numbers will not exceed those of the Archons, will be allowed to vote at this point and the overall goal is consensus to bring everyone to a reasonable sentence that satisfies all parties.

Checks and Balances

With that all finished the question at this point comes; these bodies are meant to act in a Bi party like system what types of checks will they have on one another? Personally I'm not a super fan of the idea that the government should be in a constant state of conflict with one another but never the less some things are necessary in order to keep the peace so to speak I guess. to Summarize it:

Forum(Makes law and Enforces it)
- Will have the Power to impeach members of the Judiciary, whether Archon or Jurist.
- Can make amendments to the constitution

Tribunes
- Will have the power to impeach members of the Forums
- Judicial Review: the power to review and if they so wish to veto primary legislation made by the Forums.

To further elaborate on that the reason both have the power to Impeach one another is rather simple. To prevent said process from becoming in any way politicized. It should be purely be a measure for dealing with members of either body who suffer from... lapses of character and have engaged in criminal behavior not fit for a member of such bodies.

Now in the case of constitutional amendments all that is necessary for such a thing is something around the lines of a strong majority(say 2/3) within the National Forum mixed that in with approval by a national referendum, which shall occur once every 4 years, whereby in order to pass said amendment they need a 2/3 majority and a quorum of 2/3 of eligible voters at which point said amendment passes.

Now for Judicial Review this is a power that shall resemble that seen and in use by the united states albeit in a somewhat modified form. For one thing this power will be confined to a specific group of Tribunes(Constitutional) whose entire focus is Constitutional Law. The power shall function in a manner that resembles the presidential Veto with the Tribunes in question having the right to review whatever Legislation that is crafted by the Forum that they hold jurisdiction over and any below that level. Upon doing this review members may vote to blackball said Legislation which depending on the numbers bought forth will determine how strong said veto is.

If their numbers are less equal to or less than 51% the Veto will be known as a soft Veto and will function in a manner similar to a suspension veto lasting a certain percentage of a year depending on the percentage of members voting to do so. So for example 25% of members choose to Black ball the Legislation if they do so said Veto will suspend the Legislation for approximately 3 months and so on. Upon the completion of said Soft Veto a second Vote can be held by the Tribune which if the number of vetoing members equals or is less than the previous vote then the suspension will end. If it exceeds then the Legislation will continue to be suspended for as long as the extension lasts. So for example if say in the original vote 25% voted yes but in the second said vote netted 33% of members then the extension will be roughly an extra month. with the suspension lasting for now a total of 4 months. This will continue on until they can't bring any more guys into the party and the suspension ends then well the Forum at that point can vote and can overcome said veto with a Simple Majority albeit said legislation will have to be specifically black marked with it being explicitly publicly mentioned that said legislation violates the rights of others and is being made and done despite that fact.

Now what if the Veto vote exceeds that or during one of the aforementioned extension votes the numbers now exceed 51% then well in a manner a similar thing will occur but it will be termed a strong Veto. Depending on the strength of the vote the Legislation will be suspended for a certain length of time equal to the percentage that demanded to black ball the legislation with similar rules for extension. With that in mind the suspension can last for a maximum of 12 months, assuming all members agree to black ball the legislation. Upon the completion of said suspension though the Forum can vote on the Legislation again but in order to pass it they need to have at the minimum an equal percentage as that seen in the Tribune voting yes. So for example if say The veto was made with 75% of the members of the Tribune voting yes to it in order to overcome the veto upon the ending of the suspension the Forum must now have 75% of their members or more vote yes to pass it.

[A Cornstar]

A tripartite system I think would be less delicate. Monarchs as whole are actually quite politically diverse. I would advocate establishing a monarchy that donned the role of the nation personified, and so raised to hold the concerns of lords and commons alike, to act as the executive authority.

[Pope Joan]

I would eliminate the Dept of Commerce

roll Education back in with Human Services to recreate the old HEW, doing what is usually done during mergers. "Consolidatng"

eliminate ATF

eliminate DEA

eliminate mere statistical studies at CDC; that is not research.

Eliminate welfare enforcement; it costs more money than it saves

prohibit revolving door relationships at FDA and SEC

The worst judge ever to sit on the Pa Supreme Court was elected; he was a demagogue. I think he finally went to jail for soliciting bribes.

[Empire of Narnia]

SCOTUS judges should be elected. Nobody believes in the fantasy that they're impartial. They never were and they never will be. Nobody even pretends they are anymore. The best solution is to elect them with four year terms like the President.

[Dahon]

A judge is not required to pander to his constituents; he's required to settle legal disputes according to what is written in the law. Though of course trying to keep up with today's demands is part and parcel of judicial decision-making, it is not all of it, and to have it predominate the deliberations of judges as they seek office (or a return to it) is to open the court to arbitrary notions, for bad in the long run.

[Tribes Republic]

A judge is not required to pander to his constituents; he's required to settle legal disputes according to what is written in the law. Though of course trying to keep up with today's demands is part and parcel of judicial decision-making, it is not all of it, and to have it predominate the deliberations of judges as they seek office (or a return to it) is to open the court to arbitrary notions, for bad in the long run.

That's why my plan only the Chief Justice would be elected all the others would be appointed as normal

[Pope Joan]

The worst judge ever to sit on the PA Supreme Court was elected. I think his name was Wolf.

He was a demagogue.

He did not care at all about laws, procedures, or right and wrong,aslong as he played well to his base.

He slandered and threatened his colleagues.

He eventually went to jail for soliciting bribes. I belive.

So, NEVER ELECT JUDGES

[Ifreann]

eliminate mere statistical studies at CDC; that is not research.

Yes it is.

[The Cosmic Frankish Empire]

Privatise the US Government

[Communist Xomaniax]

Abolishing the electoral college and putting a nonpartisan committee in charge of drawing up congressional districts would already make a world of difference.

[Khataiy]

Why would there be any need to restructure?

[Republic of the Cristo]

Amend the first amendment, to state that America is a nation led and decisively founded upon the teachings of christianity, and that no law or statute may interfere with the religious practice of any church or individual - so long as that particular practice does not harm other non-consenting individuals or the community at large.

Remove the amendment limiting the number of presidential terms. If the electorate hates the sitting president, then they need but vote him out of office - likewise, if the president is loved, he should be allowed to retain his position as long as both they and the electorate desire.

Amend the 15th so as to clearly define the amendment as being period specific, and not applying to future cases.

Repeal the amendment ( I forget which one ) which permits 18 year olds to vote, and return the minimum voting age to 21.

I would ban elected members of government, and those running for government office, from being members of a political party, and or taking direction from any such entity.

I would reform the electoral college so that the average citizen constitutes it's ranks instead of political representatives. The requirements for college membership must be 21 years of age, no felonies on record, has applied for selective service, can prove their tax returns, and must pass a political knowledge test ( kin almost entirely to the Constitution test which we all took in high school ).

Finally, I would change the name of the bill of rights, to the bill of privileges. As anything currently in the document can be changed or altered at any time, thus to call them a right ( something which is guaranteed ) would be incorrect - rather that they are privileges * Thomas Hobbes nods approvingly *

All in hopes of restoring a Christian republic, backed by a savvy and elite electorate, not bound by the decadence of party politics and factionalism.

[Erythrean Thebes]

The primary reported flaw of the US government stems from difference of taste and opinion, in any case. The other significant source of government 'failure' is human error. Neither is very capably addressed by an institutional approach. How much of the outstanding objections to the federal government would be fixed if people tomorrow just stopped trying to take away the dignity and bodily freedom of other parents, businesspeople, children, and dependents in this country? Nothing you do as an institutional reform will really accomplish that

[Nordengrund]

I think we need to remove gerrymandering, political donations and the like rather than making any radical changes, though there is an idea I am entertaining.

Have the Lresident be more like a constitutional monarch, with a virtually no powers or just having reserve powers and is non-partisan, and serves for life, but is elected by the Elxtoral College.

The Vice President could function more like a prime minister, at least in the sense that he is the head of government, though Idk if he should be able to be removed by a vote of no confirmed ve. The legislature and executive would still be independent of each other.