• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What do you want the government to do?

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
34,775
Reaction score
12,160
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
What do you want the government we are creating with this nascent constitution to do.

By this I mean, what powers do you want it to have, if any? Or what do you want it not to be allowed?
What duties should it have? What authority?

Personally I think it is impossible for any individual or even large body of persons to really consider all the possible acts a government might take, then allow/disallow as needed.
Therefore it might be best to disallow all except a few specific duties and authorities, to avoid expansion of power/authority without a serious debate over a constitutional amendment.

In other words, I would think it best to have a constitution that assigns specific duties to the government, and gives it specific authorities to support those duties.

It must be written in such a way that adding duties or authorities can only be accomplished by a debate/discussion open to all citizens, in such a way that they can fully grasp the questions at hand and make their individual opinion on the matter known (through whatever system we emplace to transmit power from the people to the governing body).
 
What do you want the government we are creating with this nascent constitution to do.

By this I mean, what powers do you want it to have, if any? Or what do you want it not to be allowed?
What duties should it have? What authority?

Personally I think it is impossible for any individual or even large body of persons to really consider all the possible acts a government might take, then allow/disallow as needed.
Therefore it might be best to disallow all except a few specific duties and authorities, to avoid expansion of power/authority without a serious debate over a constitutional amendment.

In other words, I would think it best to have a constitution that assigns specific duties to the government, and gives it specific authorities to support those duties.

It must be written in such a way that adding duties or authorities can only be accomplished by a debate/discussion open to all citizens, in such a way that they can fully grasp the questions at hand and make their individual opinion on the matter known (through whatever system we emplace to transmit power from the people to the governing body).

If we were to disallow the govt from doing anything except the few specific powers, we would render the govt incapable of responding to the unforseen.

Better to do as we have done, and have a constitution that has created a democratic political process in which all can participate in making the decisions needed in order for our govt to do its' job.
 
What do you want the government we are creating with this nascent constitution to do.

By this I mean, what powers do you want it to have, if any? Or what do you want it not to be allowed?
What duties should it have? What authority?

Personally I think it is impossible for any individual or even large body of persons to really consider all the possible acts a government might take, then allow/disallow as needed.
Therefore it might be best to disallow all except a few specific duties and authorities, to avoid expansion of power/authority without a serious debate over a constitutional amendment.

In other words, I would think it best to have a constitution that assigns specific duties to the government, and gives it specific authorities to support those duties.

It must be written in such a way that adding duties or authorities can only be accomplished by a debate/discussion open to all citizens, in such a way that they can fully grasp the questions at hand and make their individual opinion on the matter known (through whatever system we emplace to transmit power from the people to the governing body).

The sovereign states have plenary power to make and enforce laws, protect property rights, etc. The federal government's powers should be limited to protecting the member states from invasion and resolving disputes between member states and citizens of different states. It should have no direct powers within any of the sovereign member states.
 
Should we first discuss branches of Government? We do elect Congress, we elect POTUS, what about SCOTUS? I am having difficulties with lifetime appointees far removed from the concerns of the average citizen.
Also, state Gov, federal Gov, is matters not if the will of the people isn't carried out and one branch overrides the other, is given too much power.
For example, in matters of protecting the nation, Gov should have any means necessary, but no one branch of Gov must act on its own.
Perhaps it would help to discuss specifics, and being a bad example perhaps as this may stir up a hornet's nest, but, keeping in mind the current vs some (in our version) ideal Gov structure, let us discuss amnesty.
 
If we were to disallow the govt from doing anything except the few specific powers, we would render the govt incapable of responding to the unforseen.

Better to do as we have done, and have a constitution that has created a democratic political process in which all can participate in making the decisions needed in order for our govt to do its' job.
To cover unforeseen events, we could simply have temporary "emergency authority/power".

Strictly limited in length of time possible so as to avoid abuse for one reason or another.
In a war, of course, that time could be extended by a legislative vote (presuming we have a legislature similar to current?).
 
We need a Constitution of limited powers and limited authority. Otherwise it is rendered pointless and dishonest.

I believe the first thing we need to do is look at the current enumerated powers and decide which should stay and which should go. Then we should decide if anything else needs to be added.

And obviously, I think we need to retain an amendment process.
 
We need a Constitution of limited powers and limited authority. Otherwise it is rendered pointless and dishonest.

I believe the first thing we need to do is look at the current enumerated powers and decide which should stay and which should go. Then we should decide if anything else needs to be added.

And obviously, I think we need to retain an amendment process.
I would prefer to use your link's information to form our own similar list, rather than pick and choose parts of another document. It may of course end with us basically taking them word for word...
 
What do you want the government we are creating with this nascent constitution to do.

By this I mean, what powers do you want it to have, if any? Or what do you want it not to be allowed?
What duties should it have? What authority?

Personally I think it is impossible for any individual or even large body of persons to really consider all the possible acts a government might take, then allow/disallow as needed.
Therefore it might be best to disallow all except a few specific duties and authorities, to avoid expansion of power/authority without a serious debate over a constitutional amendment.

In other words, I would think it best to have a constitution that assigns specific duties to the government, and gives it specific authorities to support those duties.

It must be written in such a way that adding duties or authorities can only be accomplished by a debate/discussion open to all citizens, in such a way that they can fully grasp the questions at hand and make their individual opinion on the matter known (through whatever system we emplace to transmit power from the people to the governing body).

yes, you have just described what the founders did.

the constitution granted congress GENERAL POWERS......general because they are not defined powers, and it would not be possible to operate the federal government using general constitutional power.

but the founders in article 1 section 8 clause 18 granted congress the power to make federal law to define those general powers down, into a a clearer understanding so they could be carried out.
 
yes, you have just described what the founders did.

the constitution granted congress GENERAL POWERS......general because they are not defined powers, and it would not be possible to operate the federal government using general constitutional power.

but the founders in article 1 section 8 clause 18 granted congress the power to make federal law to define those general powers down, into a a clearer understanding so they could be carried out.
The way I look at things, especially if humans are involved, is that we must apply "Murphy's Law" - anything that can go wrong, will go wrong (or words to that effect).

Thus, to prevent things from going wrong, we must include self-checking of some sort into the structure outlined in this governing document we now discuss.

The problem is of course that, if we make laws overly restrictive, things will go wrong as well.

Humans, again.
 
The federal government should be, as it is now, the cohesive structure that holds the states under one umbrella and the particular use of which should be decided based on what we like about it. What we don't like about it should not really enter into the discussion as that may have a tendency to carry away the topic.

1) A cohesive nature

2) Made up of powers that benefit the whole

3) Balanced to such a degree that is uninfringable; that is to say, through no mechanism can one power become larger than another, in numbers or in scope.

4) The main concern of which should be the individual as any one lawmaker or decision maker is also effected or affected to an equal degree.

5) Come under the power of the combined states wherein executive actions cannot be made without them; being the congress.

6) Subject to the amendment process.
 
Should we first discuss branches of Government? We do elect Congress, we elect POTUS, what about SCOTUS? I am having difficulties with lifetime appointees far removed from the concerns of the average citizen.
.

SCOTUS is elected in a sense - by the Senate. I don't see putting them to a popular vote. The thought of a justice criss-crossing the country barnstorming for votes makes me shiver.

The problem may be no term limits. I've seen ideas out there for staggered terms with term limits - 18 years - so each president gets to appoint two Supreme Court justices.
Is It Time to Give Term Limits to Supreme Court Justices? - NationalJournal.com

and

Running the Numbers on Supreme Court Term Limits | Brennan Center for Justice

Pretty interesting idea, with pros and cons that both make sense...
 
SCOTUS is elected in a sense - by the Senate. I don't see putting them to a popular vote. The thought of a justice criss-crossing the country barnstorming for votes makes me shiver.

The problem may be no term limits. I've seen ideas out there for staggered terms with term limits - 18 years - so each president gets to appoint two Supreme Court justices.
Is It Time to Give Term Limits to Supreme Court Justices? - NationalJournal.com

and

Running the Numbers on Supreme Court Term Limits | Brennan Center for Justice

Pretty interesting idea, with pros and cons that both make sense...
Speaking of term limits...

What about the rest of the government?
 
As far as I am concerned, I'd like to see every one of them restricted by term limits.

No thanks. I would rather have politicans able to play the political game then left powerless at the hands of political lobbists who know more about politics then the revolving door of single term politicans.
 
No thanks. I would rather have politicans able to play the political game then left powerless at the hands of political lobbists who know more about politics then the revolving door of single term politicans.

I'd personally prefer that government stay out of my business, and leave me to buy whatever the hell I want.
 
I'd personally prefer that government stay out of my business, and leave me to buy whatever the hell I want.

I rather have somebody looking out for me that I can influence by voting, then have coporate entities river stomp me into the ground.
 
Speaking of term limits...

What about the rest of the government?

Because (theoretically) the rest of govt - senators, house of representatives, state legislators - can be removed by a vote of those they represent, I don't agree with term limits for them.

Unless we're going to have the SCOTUS re-confirmed by the Senate every so often, there is no way to remove a judge (well, there IS a way, but it never seems to be done). That's why I am ok with term limits for them, even the ones I like.
 
Secure the borders; defend against invasion, retaliate against attacks.


Secure property rights, and the rights of the individual to life and liberty, and those rights that arise from that basic three. Keep such order as is necessary to have a functioning society.




Not much else really on my list.
 
Secure the borders; defend against invasion, retaliate against attacks.


Secure property rights, and the rights of the individual to life and liberty, and those rights that arise from that basic three. Keep such order as is necessary to have a functioning society.




Not much else really on my list.


That's a mighty big can o' worms ya got there. When ya gonna open it?
 
That's a mighty big can o' worms ya got there. When ya gonna open it?


Basically individuals should enjoy ALL rights and liberties as long as they are not trampling on the rights of others in the process, or directly endangering others, or endangering the ability of civil society to exist.


The Bill of Rights covers the basics reasonably well. Reinventing the wheel isn't really necessary.
 
I look out for myself by voting for politicans who promise to keep corporate entities from dominating me.

How is depending on government looking out for yourself? Isn't that government looking out for you?
 
Basically individuals should enjoy ALL rights and liberties as long as they are not trampling on the rights of others in the process, or directly endangering others, or endangering the ability of civil society to exist.


The Bill of Rights covers the basics reasonably well. Reinventing the wheel isn't really necessary.

What environmental rights are included. Will there be an EPA, FDA, USDA?
 
Back
Top Bottom