[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Aramike

My point has been all along that I don't see this is a serious discussion of someone becoming president.

But the discussion can't hurt, right?

Back on topic, I like some of CH's platforms, especially on the role of the Constitution. However......

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The most pressing issues right now? Boy - talk about a loaded question. But still - the domestic economy is the very top of the list. That has a lot of sub subjects like tax structure, debt and the world economy, immigration, etc. etc.

Ok, you haven't mentioned too much about what you would like to do with the economy. What changes would you like to make and how would you utilize presidential powers to effect those changes?

However - you do bring up an interesting point - and one I will take the opportunity to address. I have posted about it before - money in politics. I think we need a true reform there. So here goes - I would push for the following campaign finance reforms.

I like some of the suggestions you made, but I think that it's too easy to get around them. (fiat powers on passage, for expediency's sake)
For one thing, they won't really eliminate large-scale campaign funding. Lots of powerful interest groups can raise tremendous amounts of money simply by encouraging their members to raise money or donate on their own. And item #7 on your list would have to include some pretty unenforceable laws to prevent them from doing that.
In some ways, they might actually make campaign contributions more unfair by placing too much power in the hands of citizens' special interest groups. It would undoubtedly make the system more "democratic" in a sense, but that's part and parcel with "tyranny of the masses", something our founders deliberately tried to avoid.

You have to cut off the supplies - let the "terror fruit" wither on the vine. Without the state sponsorship that they rely on, the terrorists have their ability to commit their acts crippled.

That's a bold political step you're taking, and you'd be amazed at how insurgent organizations can thrive in the absence of state support.
I have no doubt that a lot of people would like that answer, but then you open up a whole new hornet's nest as well. Some nations may have only certain factions within them that support terror activities. How would you deal with that problem? Especially if their government is not inclined to allow direct intervention?
Are you advocating an unresticted war on terror and the all the nations involved, to whatever extent?




edit-

Constitutionally the role of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense and settle issues between the states. Boy its gone a bit beyond that hasn't it? It needs to get back to that role - though realistically it may never be solely that again.

It does what you mentioned, and other important things, but I don't think that it is too late to go back. Unlikely, in today's (and in many ways, any day's political climate) but it can be done, and there is some evidence of a reactionary trend towards unconstitutional policy that may manifest itself in a decade or so, assuming that the current administration doesn't perform too well.