Our system of government was constructed from the ground up using the English system as a model. At that time there were two houses of Parliament with a monarch as head of government. However this system eventually evolved. The monarch's power was gradually reduced and the Prime Minister became the de facto head of government with the monarch remaining as pretty much a figurehead.
Our forefathers following the English model of the time provided for a president as head of government in lieu of a monarch. Unfortunately, that system doesn't allow for change if it becomes necessary. In England the prime minister is officially appointed by the monarch, but the monarch only appoints the person selected by parliament. If the parliament becomes dissatisfied with the job the prime minister is doing, they can require that the monarch appoint a replacement.
That system also allows for the presence of third parties, since they can form a negotiated coalition resulting in a head of government acceptable to two (or more) minority parties joined in compromise, to appoint a head of government (and a cabinet) acceptable to both.
If our system had been allowed to evolve as the British system has, the House of Representatives would be selecting a head of government reflecting the will of the people based on the most previous election. Unfortunately we are stuck with a "king" who appoints his cabinet, holds power and controls the government for four years before a change can be made. (Fortunately for only four years.) An attempt at a partial remedy evidently resulted in the amendment of the Constitution limiting the president to two terms.
What we really need is not a balanced budget amendment but an amendment to the Constitution providing that the president be appointed by the House of Representatives for an indeterminate term serving at the pleasure of the House. The Senate would remain as it is to serve as a balance against possible extremism in the House.
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
What you are discussing is a double edged sword. Study the history of the Fourth Republic in France. This was the government formed after WW-II. They had a new government -- executive leadership team -- on average about ever 6 months until the Fourth Republic was replaced by De Gaule and the Fifth Republic. Basically, the executive was whip-sawed by the oscillating will of the people. To be charitable, we all often have conflicting desires and are unwilling to face up to the inherent contradiction of expecting to get both. This period -- 1945 - 1958 -- was the period in which France's major colonies forcefully broke free from France. First Indochina and then Algeria. The French people did not want their drafted sons going to fight and die in Indochina and they didn't want to sink a lot of money into Indochina but nor did they want to lose Indochina. Similar story in Algeria. Under these circumstances, a politician with a prudent talent for self-preservation found himself very irresolute and vacillting and not much of a leader. This is what the Fourth Republic was all about. Better to have an executive elected for a decent period of time who cannot easily be removed from office.
What you are discussing is a double edged sword. Study the history of the Fourth Republic in France. This was the government formed after WW-II. They had a new government -- executive leadership team -- on average about ever 6 months until the Fourth Republic was replaced by De Gaule and the Fifth Republic. Basically, the executive was whip-sawed by the oscillating will of the people. To be charitable, we all often have conflicting desires and are unwilling to face up to the inherent contradiction of expecting to get both. This period -- 1945 - 1958 -- was the period in which France's major colonies forcefully broke free from France. First Indochina and then Algeria. The French people did not want their drafted sons going to fight and die in Indochina and they didn't want to sink a lot of money into Indochina but nor did they want to lose Indochina. Similar story in Algeria. Under these circumstances, a politician with a prudent talent for self-preservation found himself very irresolute and vacillting and not much of a leader. This is what the Fourth Republic was all about. Better to have an executive elected for a decent period of time who cannot easily be removed from office.
I disagree completely. Better a leader subject to the vacillating will of the people than a leader who considers himself above the will of the people.
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
I disagree completely. Better a leader subject to the vacillating will of the people than a leader who considers himself above the will of the people.
The problem with your scenario Stephanie is that you will not have a leader but a "panderer." By definition a leader has to be willing to step forward and do things that may not be popular. Someone constantly subject to the will of the people would never do the unpopular but necessary thing if they want to remain in office.
I despise the policies and general demeanor of the current president. Obama and the democrats have gotten away with what they have because the media who is supposed to be a "watchdog" for the people have set aside that role - to the detriment of our country.
__________________ www.Kaydoo.com
Your Visual Marketplace
Crafters, Artists, Fundraisers,
Kaydoo is your place to be seen.
The problem with your scenario Stephanie is that you will not have a leader but a "panderer." By definition a leader has to be willing to step forward and do things that may not be popular. Someone constantly subject to the will of the people would never do the unpopular but necessary thing if they want to remain in office.
I despise the policies and general demeanor of the current president. Obama and the democrats have gotten away with what they have because the media who is supposed to be a "watchdog" for the people have set aside that role - to the detriment of our country.
Take a look at the British system. The prime minister cannot "pander" to everyone. But he/she does have to compromise with the elements of parliament representing the people. If our head of government were selected by the House, he/she would not be able to ignore a public consensus.
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
Interesting take. Except for 1 thing....our house of representatives under that vile old scarecrow pelosi would have appointed someone who pandered to the fringe left. What you'd have is a house that dictated to the executive branch....a house that demonstrated what happens when a representative decides NOT to represent, but rather to rule. No. I prefer the current system whereby each branch checks and balances the next. Look at Britain now....they are leaderless because the PM must be approved by the will of he people's house which is as feckless and spineless a group as you'll ever see. Look who OUR reps are ! I THANK GOD that FRANK LAUTENBERG or Barney the Frank doesn't get to choose our next leader.......
When did congress represent the will of the people in this century?? Or the last one for that matter.
I don't think the founding fathers screwed anything up. I think the constitution's been trampled, ignored, and bastardized since the 1900's. probably late 1800s. The republic is dead - the empire controls and the empire was built very well as is "of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations".
Once you understand this, it all makes sense.
Our grand fathers and their grandfathers were asleep at the wheel.
The question is - will you remain asleep at the wheel so that your children, and their children's children have so much less than you had!
How many virtues of the constitution did we fearfully surrender for the Patriot Act? How about the income tax law? Why is it that the government takes their money from your paycheck before YOU get paid?
How about the executive order taking us off the gold standard - our dollars are required by the constitution to be backed by gold. No ammendment was passed by the people or congress and congress didn't object.
Heres something for you all to consider:
"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you. . . you may know that your society is doomed." Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged
How about the coinage act of 1792? If you create money out of thin air - the law requires you to be put to death?
Why did we have these laws when the constitution was framed?
Maybe because our founders DID know what they were doing and knew that an elastic money supply would lead to the death of freedom and liberty.
Why do we have god on our coins? We didn't in the 1800's - we had Icons of liberty. Our freedom was more important then our religion - dugh - it only makes sense.
No - I think we are lost - I think we sell the idea of freedom because its all that actually left of the old republic!
They had it correct. There was not one of them that had a crystal ball that could of foreseen 70 years of Progressive and Communist pressure. Its been too many years of playing the game without reading and following the rules. This is what you end up with. The Country is firmly split, each wrapping themselves in the flag and proclaiming they have it right. Sound familiar?
Our Founding Fathers Screwed UP
