General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat could the Founding Fathers have done differently to avoid a President Trump?
I'm hardly a constitutional scholar, but checks and balances in a 2-party system only function properly when each of the parties control at least one branch of the government.
Trump has been unleashed on us, and with overt partisans from his party taking the lead at the legislative and judicial levels, the opportunity for mischief is omnipresent. The Democrats would self-police in such an instance. The Republicans, obviously, will not. Party before nation, 100 times out of 100. They've made a mockery of the Constitution and our Republic is threatened as it has never been before.
DURHAM D
(32,611 posts)sarah FAILIN
(2,857 posts)Never had EC at all?
unblock
(52,386 posts)though the founders didn't expect selection of the electors, parties, traditions, and even state laws to render the independent judgment of the electoral college impotent.
sarah FAILIN
(2,857 posts)Clintons unrepresented voters would have whipped him. I've heard California would have 199 electors instead of 55 if representation was equal
unblock
(52,386 posts)They didn't put a limit on the size of the house. That was done by a law passed in 1911.
Blaukraut
(5,695 posts)MarvinGardens
(779 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,219 posts)Pachamama
(16,887 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... but, if there was a truly democratic vote it would sure decrease the potential and the majority of the country would be behind her/him
rickford66
(5,530 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)It would require a different structure than we have now, but you have an excellent point. With the Justice Department in the Executive Branch it allows a criminal President to have influence over the department investigating him/her.
rickford66
(5,530 posts)Judges couldn't be impartial. Just my thoughts.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)As I said the structure would need to be different than what we now have. I suppose you would also have public defenders within the same branch.
I'm not sure that a 4th branch of government for Justice is the right path though. It could attract the same type of people who now run for elected office, and we know what many of them are like.
Reforming the Justice Dept. does seem like a possible cure. I guess I was just thinking about how to avoid someone like Trump as POTUS. not the big picture. This does have me pondering the possibilities though.
rickford66
(5,530 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)rickford66
(5,530 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Strong presidential systems like the USA's inevitably succumb to one of two failure modes: the executive and legislative in the hands of different parties creating a crisis of democratic legitimacy, or a descent into authoritarianism.
unblock
(52,386 posts)they knew that should a like-minded people capture all the branches of government, checks and balances would be neutered and if it got too bad then the people would just have to revolt.
they were fine with the idea of revolution against tyranny.
meow2u3
(24,774 posts)Or a basic civics test to root out authoritarians?
Horse with no Name
(33,958 posts)oversight.
It would have needed to remain non-partisan but in this climate, not sure how you would achieve that.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Our two party system is broken. We would be better off without parties and within a system where a series of votes are taken to narrow the field until just 2 candidates remain. This would replace our current primary system and let people turn out to vote for whoever they feel is best without regard to party loyalty.
BainsBane
(53,076 posts)The EC is supposed to be part of that. Allowing only propertied men to vote was another. There was no direct election of Senators, which were instead chosen by state legislatures.
One correction: The two party system is not a creation of the founding fathers. They--especially George Washington-- despised parties. They thought men should run on their merits. So the constitution was not written with a two party system in mind. That has developed over time.
A parliamentary system might have prevented this, but that is not what that created.
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)First off-- qualifications for POTUS
Right now it stands at natural born US citizen and at least 35.
I would add the following
1) POTUS candidates have to pass the US citizenship test and release their test and results to the public
2) POTUS candidates have to release at least 5 years of tax returns
3) POTUS candidates have to undergo a psych eval by at least 3 different professionals. Results must be released to the public
4) POTUS candidates have to have some sort of experience as an elected official (could be low level like mayor)
Elections
If the electoral college is kept (I don't agree with it), it has to include a provision for a runoff election if the popular vote winner and EC winner are different
Congress
No term limits for congresscritters, but a retirement age instead (like some states have for judges). Make it between 70-75.
ETA a provision where registered sex offenders are ineligible to run for public office at any level.
Freddie
(9,275 posts)Perhaps a years of service/rank military service criteria if the person has no elected office experience. Ike was a good President.
Blue_Roses
(12,894 posts)Nt
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)Quayblue
(1,045 posts)dflprincess
(28,086 posts)at least we would have had healthcare now.
Freddie
(9,275 posts)With all their turmoil they still have the Queen. We have NO figure of stability right now.
randr
(12,417 posts)and buried him in a beggers grave.
Glamrock
(11,803 posts)Im all about the first amendment. But, if you call yourself news, you have to be truthful. I.E. : "Senate Republicans say the ACA could lead to death panels. However, that is a Heritage Foundation talking point and there is no evidence in the bill that cost controls would lead to that." See? Both sides are presented, as is the truth.
bhikkhu
(10,725 posts)I don't think the blame lies with the founding fathers.
Quixote1818
(28,989 posts)It would have prevented this because we would have a Gov filled with mostly honest, honorable, sane people.
Never having allowed slavery is another one.
Requiring release of taxes but they didn't have income taxes back then I don't think.