Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Platapus
The problem with democracy is that humans are involved. Humans will always have the struggle between what is right for the group and what is right for them.
Term limitations on Congress may make this problem worse. If a member of congress knew that they only have a limited time in office, they would be more likely to put their interests in front of the country's
My opinion: The forefathers were short sighted when it came to designing the system of checks and balances.
At that time, the worst thing congress could do is pass a "bad" law. This is why laws are reviewed by a supreme court and laws are carried out by a different branch of the government (Executive branch)
Unfortunately our forefathers could not foresee today's environment where the worst thing congress can do is spend money (taxes). There is simply no external checks and balances to limit how much money congress can spend.
Perhaps the solution is yet another branch of the government (can't believe I am saying that) that provides oversight and restriction to Congress spending money. Just like the Supreme Court can rule a law "unconstitutional" , this mythical new branch could rule that an expenditure is "unconstitutional".
Just a wacky idea of mine.
|
Wacky indeed. You just supported everything I said (in temrs of distrusting government) and then proposed that the solution was another branch of government. There is a branch of govenrment that resricts the spending of Gov't. It's called The People of the United States of America. Unfortunately, most of these people are educated by the stae, which in turn means that they are proponents of state values.
The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.