Should the U.S become a parliamentary democracy?
I doubt it. Parliamentary systems are characterized by "coalitions" of different interests who unite behind this or that bill or this or that administration. But we basically have that now. There's nothing that requires Democrats to vote with Democrats or Republicans to vote with Republicans. They can and they have voted against the rest of their party on many occasions. Some of them have even made careers out of being Republican-in-name-only or Democrat-in-name-only. So we'd probably just end up with the same situation, only a little more complicated.And there's an argument to be made that a two-party system is superior to a parliamentary system for various reasons. For instance, it's been said that America's two-party system exerts a moderating influence over Presidential candidates. Under a parliamentary system a President could theoretically be elected by a plurality of votes instead of a majority (I know this is technically possible under the current system but it's extremely unlikely). If Presidents can be elected by a minority of voters, they only have to campaign to a minority of voters to win. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a recipe for good governance. At least under the two-party system a Presidential candidate must earn broad majority appeal to win the election.To be honest, I'm totally cool with a federal government that is too deadlocked to do anything. The government meddles too much in my life already, so the more time it spends sitting around doing nothing the better in my opinion.
How would you rewrite the US Constitution?
You write a very interesting question. If I could rewrite the Constitution the thing I would probably do is move to a Parliamentary system. The American Founding Fathers were obsessed by the idea that someone would accumulate too much power, and so they created a fragmented systems of checks and balances to ensure that nobody could get too far without being jerked back into line by one or another of the branches. That was fine when the government was small and really didn't do too much. But it creates a recipe for gridlock in the 21st century. The Congress passes legislation that the president hates, so the President Vetoes, and Congress can't muster enough votes to override. The President Proposes new Policies, and Congress won't enact them. Gridlock. In addition to createing gridlock, the current systems creates the perfect solution for avoiding responsibility. The President blames Congress, and the Congress blames the President. Sometimes watching the give and take between them is like watching a couple of six-year-olds on a playground. "YOU STARTED IT!" And the other says, "NO I DIDN'T, YOU STARTED IT." The Founders wanted tension in government because they thought it wsa the surest safeguard against tyranny. But over time, it has created a system that takes away from the people the most important safeguard against tyranny there is -- the ability squarely to fix blame and to take decisive action against the wrongdoer. In a Parliamentary System, the real power is focused on the legislature (thus it;s more democratic). The Prime Minister is a member of Parliament, and is the Prime Minister because his party commands a working majority of seats in the assembly. Thus, with a working majority, the PM (more or less) gets the policies he/she wants, If the policies work the voters know absolutely who should get the credit; and if the policies fail, we all know who should get the blame. In a Parliamentary System, there's really no way to avoid responsibility, and I'd argue that this is the people's greatest safeguard.
What area of the U.S. Constitution or specific amendments do you think need to be shored up or loosened in some way?
Three things:It’s extremely difficult to change. Hard to change is a good thing. Easy to change is a bad thing. But at the moment, it’s too difficult to change - largely for #2 below.A side effect of the current structure of our government is that a minority interest can effectively block progress. They can’t get their way, but they can use their minority position to prevent anyone else from getting what they want. Ordinarily, this ferments compromise and helps to prevent the majority from running over the minority. However, this power in the hands of extremists can lead to gridlock, and disable the government from solving problems for everyeone.The way that it incorporates representation in terms of the states (winner take all voting in elections, the electoral college, etc.) has led to a highly dysfunctional two-party system. Each party represents itself (and their donor class) rather than their constituents. Each party is heavily segmented and the extremists in each party have undue influence. As a result, the representation of the population is severely diluted, politicians take positions based on what their party endorses rather than what makes sense, and a lot of party positions are based upon reactionary opposition and marketing rather than achieving goals. There needs to be more political parties, more accountability, and more competition among politicians and political parties.Harvard Business School’s Latest Case Study Looks at American Politics and Finds a Rigged System
American Presidential System VS. Canadian Pariliamentary System?
The Westminster System seems to be more democratic, although people may elect a President they place soul faith in that person not to take-over the nation, Once a President is elected they have Supreme Control in the sense they could technically dissolve Congress and the Senate by declaring a State of Emergency in which sense a Dictatorship is born, even Hitler struggled to create a dictatorship, the American System seems to be an easy way to do it. With the Westminster System the Monarch is Head of State, and Prime minister is Head of Government, The Prime minister is leader of the party who gains the most seats in the House of Commons (As it is called in the UK and Canada) The Monarch then appoints that leader as PM, and can remove him/her should they try to take Supreme Control; This effectively protects the users of the Westminister System from living in a Dictatorship. Just like in the American System the Westminster System has another 'House' the House of Lords, these people have no real power however can amend laws for the benefit of the state, any law to be passed MUST go through this house however if that House declines the Bill the House of Commons may then re-vote and over rule it for then it goes for Royal Assent in which the Monarch or Governor-General inspects the law and may choose to Veto it although this is hasn't been necessary for many years. I would say aswell that another Con of the American System is that in the House of Commons the Opposition and Government are set out across from each other and actually Debate things, whereas the American System is rather more you sit and listen, the physical layout of the chamber isn't geared for debating and fighting to get your points across it makes the Politics much less democratic and much less intresting. @Eugene Canada and the UK have constitutions, also the American Constitution has been changed many times to suit the government of the day, it's changed on a common basis.
Why do the Liberals in US government treat the US like a parliamentary democracy instead of a republic?
One day a florist went to a barber for a haircut. After the cut, he asked about his bill, and the barber replied, "I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The florist was pleased and left the shop. When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a "thank you" card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door. Later, a police officer came in for a haircut and, when he tried to pay his bill, the barber again replied, "I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The officer was happy and left the shop. The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a "thank you" card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door. A Democrat came in for a haircut and, when he went to pay his bill, the barber again replied, "I can not accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The Democrat was very happy and left the shop. The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were a dozen Democrats lined up waiting for a free haircut.
Would you approve a change in our constitution to allow a president to be removed for failing to survive a vote of "No confidence"?
No, I would not be in favor of that at all. Our Founders had the wisdom to envision ways that the governments of the time failed their peoples and sought to provide solutions to those problems. In essence, they believed that good people would always be able to govern, but they must design a system that could limit bad actors to preserve a government for, by, and of the people.Given that frame of reference, there are some immediate issues that crop up with this suggestion:The Legislative branch would be allowed to drag the Executive branch through the mud at will. And the American people would probably fall for that trick, sadly. Since most American fault the President for things that do and do not happen (even though Congress is responsible for making all laws), I have little faith that they would see through this form of stalling and gridlock.There would be no corresponding weapon for the Executive branch to wield. The President would have neither a carrot to entice Congress nor a stick to poke or beat them with if they chose to misbehave or willfully neglect their duty for political purposes (see note 1).Nightmare scenario: the Vice President, in conjunction with the Legislative branch conspires to depose the sitting President via a “"no confidence” vote allowing the VP to take over. If you think that’s far-fetched, you might want to observe our current situation a little closer. Mike Pence would not have won the Presidency had he been the nominee. Other politicians like him failed miserably, yet he would be a more palatable option to Congress due to his conventional and orthodox views (according to many Republicans). Do you really believe Congress would be above issuing such a threat publicly or privately?And suddenly we would have a serious example of thwarting the will of the people. Don’t believe me? Go ask anyone who was their favorite VP and ask if they would vote for them over the guy who was actually President. Bet you won’t find too many takers. Additionally, nothing could be done to stop this process. The Judicial branch is too slow and it would be easy for the bad actors to maintain “"plausible deniability” about what happened. The people are too easily divided and often get blinded by political maneuvers. That is what the Founders sought to avoid.
What is the worst part of USA Constitution?
The right to bear arms. In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries. American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. In one year, more children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. The American Medical Association reports that between 36% and 50% of male eleventh graders believe that they could easily get a gun if they wanted one. This is just the havoc caused to the children in America. This insane attitude to firearms means that no one even knows how many hundreds of millions of guns there are in the US. Guns make it easier to kill and injure people. Therefore, it is obvious to the most casual observer that reducing the prevalence of guns will reduce the prevalence of death and injury, which cannot be done due to this part of the constitution.
If other countries can do without a first amendment and also ban hate speech, why can't we?
Note that all of these countries have a parliamentary system, not a presidential system (except France, which has a semi-presidential system). The result of that is you don't get anyone in charge of the country who doesn't have a proven record in the legislature, because that's how it goes - get elected to the legislature, get popular enough with your party so it will elect you to be leader, and THEN you have a shot at being Prime Minister when there's a general election. If your party gets most seats in the legislature, then you as the party leader will be PM. The monarch or president has to appoint you but that's pretty much a formality. Germany is one that has an extra stage of the legislature having to nominate someone to the president - that's one I happen to know: I don't know about the others. You can't have anyone just going for it with no experience like Trump did. Trump certainly wouldn't have got past the "being elected as leader of a party with a chance of a majority in the legislature" stage. If choosing Trump as the candidate hadn't been thrown open to primaries, just left to Republican congressmen, or all actual paid-up members of the party, would they have chosen someone else? That's how it would have been done in Europe. Some of these countries do have an equivalent of the 1st Amendment - Jeroen has quoted the Dutch one. An interesting example is the UK, which has no written constitution at all and just runs on the principle that anything is permitted unless it is specifically illegal. If it's not illegal, it's "permitted by custom since time immemorial" (defined as 1189!), therefore it's legal at common law and that's that. So we have laws against inciting racial and religious hatred, which basically apply to speech that incites violence, and that's all we need.
Would conservatives’ objections to nationalized healthcare lessen if they believed that the government could run such a program without mucking it up?
No.The problem most lf us have isn’t as much “government” incompetence, the cost runaway of any industry freed from market controls, the necessary limits that must be placed on public services, or any of the multitude of other issues attendant to forcing people against their will to give up the fruits of their labors for the benefit of others.It’s that it’s illegal. The Constitution delegates no authority for the federal “government” to do so. It’s the problem we have with welfare, Social Security, and the entire gamut of the “government’s” unauthorized activities. Just doing anything it wants to, however it wants to, without the slightest concern or regard for the law.When was the last time you heard a politician say anything to the effect of, “that’s a great idea, it would do a lot of good, but unfortunately the Constitution doesn’t give us the authority to do it, you’ll have to talk to your Stare legislature.” i’ve never heard it, but that’s what the Constitution says do for much of what the “government” does or wants to do.Amend the Constitution to permit it legally, we’d not be happy about it but we’d make it work. For the brief amount of time it would take before the “government” destroys the country with it, anyway.
How would you restructure the government to improve the "checks and balances" system?
I wouldn't necessarily “restructure” the federal government but I would take a few actions that would strengthen the existing checks and balances in government and improve the overall quality of governance.Repeal Amendment 16 to the U.S. Constitution: The federal government should not be collecting taxes on income. The federal government has so much power because they have the power to levy taxes on income. The powers of the federal government are enumerated in the United States Constitution, if they stuck to those responsibilities, then there would be no need for trillions in revenues.Repeal Amendment 17 to the U.S. Constitution: The Senate is a separate legislative body, distinct from the House of Representatives. At least that was the intent of the Founders. The Senate was supposed to provide the States a check on the power and expenditures of the federal government. The Senate has just become a glorified House of Representatives ever since Amendment 17 was ratified.Eliminate the vast majority of federal agencies, fire respective employees, and destroy the Administrative State: The myriad federal agencies that come under the Executive Branch have dangerously become a 4th Branch of government in and of themselves. The people who actually run these agencies are neither elected nor necessarily appointed by elected officials. These federal agencies allow the Executive Branch to frequently bypass the Legislative Branch and implement the policies they want. Many of these agencies have protected interests of their own and Congress is exercising very weak oversight.Term Limits on Congress: There are too many individuals who have made a long term career of serving in Congress. Our Republic was designed with the intent of creating citizen-politicians, not a permanent political class that constantly festers in Washington. I would prefer to have term limits of 2 terms (12 years) on Senators and 4–5 terms for Members of the House (8–10 years).In my view, these changes would once again put checks and balances at the forefront. The Executive Branch could no longer bully and run amok of the Congressional oversight so desperately needed.