posted
I was brainstorming for scholarship/college app. essays, and I came across this question:
"If you were given the opportunity to change a specific government policy, what policy would you want changed and explain fully why you think the change is necessary?"
seriously, or not so seriously, what do you think?
Posts: 19 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let’s see…. First I’d make sure that its freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Meaning that we are a Christian nation which allows religious expression not one that misinterprets laws so that God is taken away. That should solve most problems.
I’d also have some sort of term limit added into the constitution for all publicly elected offices at any level. 12 years or two terms. Something like that.
And a balanced budget amendment.
Oh, and a requirement of a super ¾ majority for all tax increases and regular majority for all tax cuts.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd Like Jack Ryan (the fictional character of Tom Clancy's) to be our president. I really liked the way he rebuilt the government in Executive Orders.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a lot easier to rebuild the government if you can kill it off first. That's why it's been the preferred method of reformers throughout history.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first item that I'd put on my list of candidates (possible changes) would be the elimination of legal abortion.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
<sigh> Everyone wants tax cuts, no one wants the money taken from the same places.
I'd like to abolish the two party system. They're both too entrenched, too deeply tied to money, too endeared to a system of their own design. Let's have a great big open ballot and give everyone a first and second choice, and see if we get some Greens, Libertarians, Socialists... Hell, anything to get a few more points of view in the mix. I don't think the established platform of either party really corresponds to even a large minority of voters anymore, so every choice is a "lesser of two evils" approach.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Congress can give itself a raise, and does so on a fairly regular basis."
People don't hope to be elected so they can get rich off their salaries. EVERYONE is supposed to get a raise every year, why shouldn't Congress? They have to use that money to maintain two residences, one in Washington and one in their home district or state. Unless they were wealthy before they got there, they aren't rolling in money from their salaries.
I would change the two party system. There should be multiple parties that HAVE to work together to get things done. As it is, it's one party bullying the other around, and the minority using stall tactics where it doesn't have the real power to oppose. We'd get more compromise, and more done.
I also think there should be provisions for a balanced budget. What's the point in having a debt ceiling anyway? All we ever do is raise it higher. There should be something stricter in place to MAKE them be responsible. Obviously they don't know how to do it themselves.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would add term limits for all elected offices. Our society isn't so deviod of capable people that we need the same people sitting in office for decades at a time.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Let’s see…. First I’d make sure that its freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Meaning that we are a Christian nation which allows religious expression not one that misinterprets laws so that God is taken away. That should solve most problems.
Sometimes freedom from religion is freedom of religion. My freedom not to have to pray at school and be ostracized for my belief is a perfect example.
I would create a flat tax for everyone. No person pays more or less that a certain amount, with no loop holes. If I had a second notion, I would take all money out of government, meaning no lobbyists or campaign donations. Instead, the government pays for campaigns with equal money given to each party. Yeah, good luck with that one.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously? I'd give the states back the powers they were supposed to have in the first place.
But on a more local level:
I don't like the fact that people who make 'ugly faces' at dogs may be fined and/or jailed where I live. I rather like the idea of giving 'em a glare on occasion, maybe even an angry snort. But I gotta rein that inclination in. Keep it inside, hidden.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hm. Given that, I'd remove the commerce clause.
DO you mean abolish the federal government's power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, or remove the restrictions on federal power that requires a connection to interstate commerce before it can act?
If the former, then the following acts are right out:
Endangered species act Civil rights act ADA Mail Fraud RICO FDA and all drug approvals OSHA and all safety regulations All federal gun control laws Antitrust laws Labor Relations Laws
I can't even think of them all, there are so many.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
when states had that kind of power some of them get the inclination to separate.
Dispite living in Canada however I live in Quebec as an english speaker and I refuse to believe that in any way Quebec deserves to be its own country, they're canadian and always will be canadian.
IP: Logged |
That might have been an issue in the distant past, but I don't foresee any states attempting to leave the country. They weren't threatening to leave it when World War II came around, which is when most of the power was taken and placed in the federal arena -- for streamlining the war effort. It was just never given back. That's what I have a problem with.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If the former, then the following acts are right out:
Yep. That's precisely what I mean. I no longer trust the federal government to properly oversee those essential elements of society; I believe that direct election of our representatives, coupled with an increasing need for specialization in order to understand the minutae of each issue, has created an environment in which career politicians are no longer capable of deciding those issues for an entire nation in an informed manner. People keep mistaking me for a leftist. *laugh*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to see reform in the House of Representatives and Senate. Specifically:
-A cap on the number of years a Senator or Representative can hold office.
-True representation of the people. People really should be able to vote on any issues, i.e. Roe V Wade and if their Representative or Senator does not vote in conjuction with their represented body, they should suffer disciniplary action and/or removal... We live in the 21st century and have the technological means to allow people to vote on the issues that matter to them. Sadly, our House and Senate are bombarded by multi-hundred page bills that even they don't read, so this hope for reform is futile. Why would Reps and Senators simplify things for Joe Average, only to be held accountable if they do not vote the way the people want their elected official to vote?
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Jay. I would make it unquestionable that we are a Christian nation. Probably put that into the Constitution as a statement clause of position a little more than policy. I mean, regardless of your protestations Kwea, we are practically if not officially, a Christian nation already. Unless TomD's argument that Christians shouldn't have much to worry about is not true.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alucard: its important to keep in mind that practicality/impracticality of counting everyone's votes was not the primary consideration when choosing a republican, representative style of government, and that the capability to do so does not override the (demonstrably still extant) other concerns.
For instance, think of how many bills you've seen horrendously misrepresented in the media.
Think of your own area of work, and imagine if the laws for it were not determined by a body of representatives who at least often consulted experts even if they didn't always pay attention, but a large body of people who had no frickin' idea what your work was like and voted based on bully pulpit grandstanding by polemicists.
Think how many laws are unavoidably complex -- many bills could, for sound reasons dealing with the fact that our country is freakin' big and complex, be interpreted to both support and oppose certain positions (this is unsurprising, as bills are almost always compromises). If representatives are now mandated to vote based on naively simplistic statements, who's going to determine if such a bill was more "for" or more "against" a particular position?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I knew the impracticiality and many faults of my suggestions as I wrote them. Maybe I prefer a government of city-states instead of a federal one? But one thing for sure, I am not a political strategist and I am quite naive about most things political. Basically, I am out of my league in here!
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It does seem to make customs problematic, though.
I imagine that many states would enact laws permitting free trade with other states. Those that didn't would probably lose enough trade that they'd change their minds.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the first suggestion you made, though balancing it right would be an issue.
As for the second, I do prefer a system that simplifies bills. Specifically, I'd like to create a two-tiered legislative process, with one, smaller body setting policy law, and a much larger, more complex body involving numerous committees and agencies undertaking the administration of that policy law (and the creation of administrative law to enact it). This is already done to a minor extent in some areas (FCC anyone?). Administrative law would be easier to make, but also easier to repeal or reject (if, for instance, an appropriately constituted body declared it to not be in support of any of the policy law in place).
Properly done, we'd have policies that were actually human readable and debated prior to enactment, but hard to change (like current laws are hard to change), whereas the detail stuff, which is complex, depends on changing circumstance, and far more area specific would be decided far more quickly relying largely on experts, but be easy to get rid of.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd make the separation of church and state ironclad. If you don't have a good solid non-faith-based reason for your legislation, it ain't happening. Period. No more attempts at creation of a theocracy.
There are so many people in this country who are not in any way Christian. What is it, exactly, that you think makes the country a "Christian nation"? Because it can't just be based solely on your desire for it to be true.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd make the separation of church and state ironclad. If you don't have a good solid non-faith-based reason for your legislation, it ain't happening.
Who gets to decide if it's a good solid reason?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd also like to see some way of forcing bills to only contain elements that are related to one another. I'm sick of seeing bills that go something along the lines of an education funding bill with funding for some senator's cousin's livestock show thrown in.
Not sure how such a restriction would actually be implimented, but it would be nice to see.
Of course, this still doesn't prevent wastefull pork barrel spending. At least it should prevent member of congress from being forced to voted against otherwise good bills to shoot down this type of waste.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always thought the point of the Federal vs. State and county governments was that the majorit of issues, moral and menial, were supposed to be taken care of on a local level.
I conceed that there are certain issues that need to be adressed in a national forum, especially human rights issues; However, it seems to me the intention of the founding fathers was to prevent the fedral government from having some of the sweeping abilities it now posesses.
I think one of the major issues that has confuscated the percieved purpose of government is the graying out of the borders between the branches of government. The descrepancy between the original powers and purpose of the Judicial branch and its current leaning toward rulings unsupported by any act of congress or related laws is one of the major issues we face.
The source of the problem is not fully in the court of the judges.(pun not intended) Laws regarding moral dillemas are hard to pass because of the job security related concerns our law makers face while also (hopefully) trying to determine what is right legally and morally. This seems to be why amny moral decisions often end up being taken care of at the judical level.
Some openly welcome this method of "legislation". Some only welcome it subjectively, applauding it when supporting a particular view, and condemning it if they do not. If I were to hope for a specific change in the government it would be an end to such practices. Even if I didn't like some of the resulting laws.
I'm not holding my breath. State and Federal Congress often won't decide so it seems the Judges have to.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. The question is very narrow. A specific U.S. government policy? Just one? I'm torn between a few, but I think I'd go with campaign finance reform: Each canadidate running for federal office gets $X from the government, with no supplementary funding of any sort permitted. Support your candidate with your vote, not your dollars. In a system with more than two parties, my preference would be something similar to what's done here in Canada -- each party gets $Y per vote received. This way even if you vote for a losing candidate, your vote was not wasted. I don't think this works in a two-party system, though.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by calaban: However, it seems to me the intention of the founding fathers was to prevent the fedral government from having some of the sweeping abilities it now posesses. [/QB]
Is the intention of the founding fathers necessarily binding?
I don't mean this as rebutel to your points calaban. I'm asking because I have seen this argument used by a lot of people lately, and I'm not convinced that it is even a valid.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is Important, but given that the world changes, how much it has changed, and how much the authors of the Constitution were aware of this fact, not overridingly so.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jay wrote: First I’d make sure that its freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Meaning that we are a Christian nation which allows religious expression not one that misinterprets laws so that God is taken away. That should solve most problems.
I don't think it would solve "most" problems, but you might be interested to know that Commonwealth nations don't have the same church/state dichotomy that you have. I'll use Canada as an example, since that's where I live. First, since the Queen is still technically the ruler of Canada, Canada must be a Christian nation -- specifically, an Anglican nation, as the Queen is also the head of the Anglican church. This is true for all Commonwealth nations. Second, our Constitution states "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law," it's written plain as day in the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (we have two Constitution Acts, the first in 1867, when Canada was founded, and the second in 1982, when the Constitution was formally patriated from the United Kingdom).
As an aside, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is probably my favourite legal document ever. "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms" is such a wonderful phrase.
So Canada is unquestionably a Christian nation... but somehow I get the feeling you wouldn't be happy living here. Our taxation system is strongly progressive (in the "graduated" sense of the term, not the "forward-looking" sense). Our health care system is public and universal. Same-sex marriage is explicitly allowed here by law; the legal definition of marriage refers to people, not men and women. We do not explicitly have any Charter right to own or carry firearms, though many parts of Canada have a strong hunting culture and firearms are hardly uncommon.
Based on the Commonwealth example, it doesn't really seem like a Christian nation would be your kind of country.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed fugu, there are many situations that we face that they could never forsee. I think the founding fathers issue is only valid when dealing with certain areas. One primary issue is states rights. I think the intention was that although The Unites States was a group of states under one governing body, each state held certain autonomous rights. Additionally the trilateral structure of our government and the guidelines they set out for seperation of powers are extremely important and will never be eclipsed by any specific issue.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to do something to take away much of the power that the federal government has taken over since the constitution was ratified, and give it back to the state.
And yet, no solutions I can think of are satisfying -- they all throw out too many babies with the bathwater.
As I think about it, I want the federal government to stay out of things that I want them to stay out of, but step in and take charge when I want them to.
Which in essence means that I want to be king, just like Megan.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have the same problem with Liberatarianism. I really like a lot of what they say, but some of the conclusions/results of liberatarianism are extremely distasteful to me.
In reality, I want liberatarianism that follows my agenda. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like term limits for senators and representatives. Of course I say this because I very much want new people in Utah's Legislative seats (I'm especially not fond of Bennet and Hatch.) With a brand new set, I could get annoyed with politics in whole new and exciting ways.
But ultimately if I had to change one thing, I would want the school systems to be revamped. However impratical, I think that a free quality education (not the watered down version we have now) is essential for our progress as a nation. I would like to see teachers paid and treated as if their degree actually means something, our federal govenment quit trying to manage education, and our society quit viewing public school as a babysitting service.
Financially, of course, this would be a nightmare for the state and the federal government, but the question didn't say it had to be practical.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would abolish the armed forces as such, keeping the National Guard, Air National Guard and Coast Guard to protect the nation. I would then spend all that money on schools and hospitals.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional- You're Mormon, right? You do realize how completely screwed you would be if America became a Christian nation? Most of the conservative Christians I know hate Mormons much more than they hate atheists or homosexuals, they just can't do anything about it.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alucard...: -True representation of the people. People really should be able to vote on any issues, i.e. Roe V Wade and if their Representative or Senator does not vote in conjuction with their represented body, they should suffer disciniplary action and/or removal... We live in the 21st century and have the technological means to allow people to vote on the issues that matter to them. Sadly, our House and Senate are bombarded by multi-hundred page bills that even they don't read, so this hope for reform is futile. Why would Reps and Senators simplify things for Joe Average, only to be held accountable if they do not vote the way the people want their elected official to vote?
I once said that the paradox of representative democracy is that we elect people expecting them to be smarter than us, more disciplined than us, more virtuous than us, more educated and informed than us... And then expect them to make the same choices _we_ would.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First I'd remind them that we have bathrooms with which to go potty in. Then grab a new pair of pants and, y'know, the usual.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think we're a Christian nation. Frankly, I think that's a good thing, because it would make government even more hypocritical than it already is. I mean, the USA (and all governments) act in pretty darn unChristlike ways all the time. That's pretty bad, some would say necessary, but I think it'd be worse (even more hypocritical) if we were a Christian nation. -----
Megan,
quote:I'd make the separation of church and state ironclad. If you don't have a good solid non-faith-based reason for your legislation, it ain't happening. Period. No more attempts at creation of a theocracy.
This goes quite a distance beyond just seperation of church and state, you know. In essence it outlaws religion. It does not outlaw the practice of religion...in daily life. But don't try to do anything important with religion, like influence the world around you, because the Wise Secularists know better.
Which is a pretty intolerant and offensive way of thinking, if you're a secularist and some religious nut tries to tell you how to live your life. But not, apparently, the other way around.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which is a pretty intolerant and offensive way of thinking, if you're a secularist and some religious nut tries to tell you how to live your life. But not, apparently, the other way around.
And yet, somehow, people of faith can do this all the time and it's perfectly ok? That, to me, is what laws with solely religious bases are. It's an attempt to "influence the world," as you put it, by forcing everyone under that law to live under that religion.
Notice, I don't say that the law should have NO faith-based reasons. I just think faith-based reasons shouldn't be the ONLY one. Why? Because there are a whole lot of people in this country who aren't Christian and who don't want to live under laws with solely Christian bases. These laws make no sense to me.
Take blue laws, for example. Why should it be illegal to buy alcohol on Sundays? What, precisely, is the reason for that? It's solely tied up in religious traditions. Why should this apply to people who believe it's just fine and dandy to drink on Sundays?
I DON'T think anyone should be prevented from practicing their religion. I just don't think they should be allowed to force it on others through legislation either.
Edit: What does an entirely secular basis for legislation cause those of faith to lose? How is your religious freedom hindered by not putting your religious beliefs into law, but instead creating law from a more generic point of view?
It seems to me that the ONLY thing having an entirely secular basis for legislation does is prevent those of faith from forcing that faith on others.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The United States? hmm... thats a tough one since I don't actually live their.... I'ld say surrender to the Chinese that'll fix ALL your problems. And subsequently fix all of their problems.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
