Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Elective Office

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Elective Office

    One of the ambitious proposals put forth by former Vice-President Al Gore was the "re-invention" of government. While the Clinton Administration may have made some progress towards promoting greater efficiency, the result was that government actually grew in size mainly because of bureaucratic self-perpetuation. No one in the United States would disagree that the reduction of government waste should be given top priority. However, before tackling such a problem, one must examine the root causes and not merely treat the symptoms.

    When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they deliberately left out the "structural path" of elective office but were very clear on names of offices, branches of government, duties of elected officials etcetera. However, what they failed to foresee was the need for elective offices to follow a required path. For example, take the leader of the executive branch; if a person wants to be elected president of the United States, they must first serve as mayor of a city, commissioner of a county and then governor of a state. The two-term limit (eight years) should also be extended to include these lower chief executives as well.

    The legislative branch should have a similar path. If one wants to be elected United States senator, they must first serve as a U.S. congressperson from that state. Before serving as a congressperson, they must serve as a councilperson of a city, representative of a state and then as a state senator. The two-term limit should apply here as well.

    As for the judicial branch, a United States supreme court justice must serve as a municipal court judge of a city, common pleas court judge of a county, circuit court or district court judge of a state, appeals court judge and state supreme court judge. The two-term limit would apply here also.

    Furthermore, the education of these candidates to-be should entail the equivalent of earning a bachelors degree, masters degree and a doctorate in philosophy degree. These degrees must be earned prior to running for elective office. Besides providing a focused academic training it will promote a greater maturity in our candidates before they experience the rigors of their first elective office.

    Few could doubt that this path would provide good practical training for those seeking higher office while at the same time establishing a track record that voters could more easily analyze and understand. The two-term limit would allow greater participation because the office would be wide open every eight years. This would force the elected official to properly execute his/her duties and not be as influenced by the various special interest groups.

    Government today is often seen as part of the problem rather than a solution to the problem. Perhaps if the United States would consider a path of development for its "philosopher kings" public trust would return and something may actually get done.

  • #2
    What the heck does that have to do with government waste? And how can you reconcile that elective system with equal opportunity rights?

    Comment


    • #3
      As far as I'm concerned that system would just aggravate the problems that we have with career politicians and eliminate the possibility of ordinary citizens being able to hold public office.
      When Society makes war on its police, it better be prepared to make friends of its criminals.

      Comment


      • #4
        same

        good points

        Comment


        • #5
          How about having requirements for voters. There are way too many people voting who have no business doing so. I don't think some inner city welfare broodmare should be able to use the vote to get money that somebody else had to work hard to get only to have the government take away through taxation and give to their 'clients'.
          The liberal politician has the only job where they go to the office to work for everyone but those who pay their salary.

          Comment


          • #6
            How about only property owners can vote. Or something like that.

            Comment


            • #7
              Even better, enact a law that only allows you to hold public office for 10 years total (local, state, federal, everything). I believe the founding fathers thought of elected officials as being temporary servants...not lifetime politicians.
              Officer, I borrowed these pants!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tony.o
                How about having requirements for voters. There are way too many people voting who have no business doing so. I don't think some inner city welfare broodmare should be able to use the vote to get money that somebody else had to work hard to get only to have the government take away through taxation and give to their 'clients'.
                Voting based on economic privilege. No thanks.
                -I don't feel you honor someone by creating a physical gesture (the salute). You honor them by holding them in memory and, in law enforcement, proceeding in vigilant, ethical police work. You honor this country or deceased soldiers or whatever you're honoring when you salute a flag by thinking, feeling, and continuing a life of freedom.

                --ArkansasRed24

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by djack16
                  Voting based on economic privilege. No thanks.
                  I agree, However, I think that welfare recipients should not be allowed to vote. Otherwise they would just vote for whoever would give them the most money through welfare. I don't think that would be good.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by savage4presiden
                    I agree, However, I think that welfare recipients should not be allowed to vote. Otherwise they would just vote for whoever would give them the most money through welfare. I don't think that would be good.
                    Are you so ignorant to believe that all people who recieve welfare care about is who can inflate their next welfare check? My mother didn't. My mother strived, first, to keep her job and then to get another as unemployment and cost of living began to rise. Combine that with bills doubling over from the slight break in employment and you got yourselves a welfare recipient. She didn't sit idly by though; she was all over the place looking for a way to support herself and her child. I don't know if you have ever lived on welfare before but let me tell you this; it isn't pleasurable. I'm the type of guy who likes to have stuff. I like to upgrade my computer, drive my nice car around, go shooting at the range, and visit friends and family who live far away. Living on welfare was the pits; I can't imagine anybody doing it voluntarily. Where was my father? No, he was not a dead-beat dad. He developed schizophrenia and had to be institutionalized thus removing him from our income. Not everybody is so lucky to have their future covered financially.

                    We need a safety net for people. I think that is a very important part of our improving America to be an even greater. Is it perfect? No. Abolish it? Hell no. We need to improve it.
                    -I don't feel you honor someone by creating a physical gesture (the salute). You honor them by holding them in memory and, in law enforcement, proceeding in vigilant, ethical police work. You honor this country or deceased soldiers or whatever you're honoring when you salute a flag by thinking, feeling, and continuing a life of freedom.

                    --ArkansasRed24

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Not all, just 99 percent. Welfare is not just the stereotypical check that comes to mind, but the total 'gift' package from the government, which always increases. They come up with a prescription plan that will pay for 10 scrips per month, then the ungratefull bastard, who takes 20 per month, bitches and is still not satisfied. Everybody on your side wants to improve it, but never offers solutions, just more and more. My solution is to stop them from electing welfare pimps like the Kerrys, Boxers, Feinsteins and Kennedys. Don't think that I'm privileged,I've never hung out with the crowd that has had their financial future guaranteed, as you put it. There are young people, with wealthy parents who pamper, but they usually turn out to be worthless adults who can't cope. I love it when the 23 year old 'rich boy' wants to call his mommy (who still pays the punks auto insurance) to the scene of his fifth auto accident in the last two years, that he has caused. Don't equate the people who have patiently built their lives over time with hard work to kids with wealthy parents. Unproductive slugs have no reason to have a say about anything regarding the governing of anybody. States have graduated drivers licenses for the 'not so skilled', how about a graduated voter registration card. I don't hear anyone else coming up with anything better.
                      The liberal politician has the only job where they go to the office to work for everyone but those who pay their salary.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        djack16, I think your experience hardly represents the majority of welfare recievers. That being said, I still think welfare should be axed. All it does is keep people dependant on the government for their well-being. In America, you can succeed or fail. It's up to you. Maybe you were born into a very tough situation in life, but the gov. is not responsible for it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          My father left when I was 3, never paid child support. I had twin sisters and a mother who had to work her *** off to pay the bills. I started working part-time when I was 12, and gave all of my paychecks to my family until I was about 20. We never took a dime of welfare money, because we knew we could make it with a lot of hard work. Also, my mother told us that we would be better served learning how to survive on our own than depending on the government. I think she was right.

                          I don't think everyone on welfare is a slob, but the vast majority are. However, I think they should still have the right to vote. Allowing only property owners to vote would be akin to some kind of caste system.
                          Officer, I borrowed these pants!

                          Comment

                          MR300x250 Tablet

                          Collapse

                          What's Going On

                          Collapse

                          There are currently 5185 users online. 284 members and 4901 guests.

                          Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                          Welcome Ad

                          Collapse
                          Working...
                          X