[freddyujnf]

I think that America needs a complete and objective reform of its hole society and political structure, with much less independence for all the states and counties. This is crucial in order for the Government to have more control of what is happening in them, in regards to unfair laws and human rights. That means a minimum of state and county independence from the US Government, and basically the same laws/rules and therefore court/prison system and law enforcement across the hole country.

That's the way the society structure is in Canada and all European countries and its much more effective, in regards to justice and human rights for all citizens. It is ineffective for a country of any size to have too much local independence, and totally unnecessary with more state independence than the German states or the Canadian provinces.

Further I believe that the American court systems is an extremely ineffective, bureaucratic and also wherry expensive mess, that needs a radical change in regards to justice and efficiency. Almost all convictions seems random to me, which is not fair in a democracy. The most effective would be to copy another respectable country's court system, like Canada's or Switzerland's.

This is the overall problem with the American society seen from my European point of view. Do you agree in that?

[beethyday]

I think that America needs a complete and objective reform of its hole society and political structure, with much less independence for all the states and counties. This is crucial in order for the Government to have more control of what is happening in them, in regards to unfair laws and human rights. That means a minimum of state and county independence from the US Government, and basically the same laws/rules and therefore court/prison system and law enforcement across the hole country.

That's the way the society structure is in Canada and all European countries and its much more effective, in regards to justice and human rights for all citizens. It is ineffective for a country of any size to have too much local independence, and totally unnecessary with more state independence than the German states or the Canadian provinces.

Further I believe that the American court systems is an extremely ineffective, bureaucratic and also wherry expensive mess, that needs a radical change in regards to justice and efficiency. Almost all convictions seems random to me, which is not fair in a democracy. The most effective would be to copy another respectable country's court system, like Canada's or Switzerland's.

This is the overall problem with the American society seen from my European point of view. Do you agree in that?

Too bad you are not part of our country, but
thought you might be interested in these:

FORMS OF GOVERNMENT Post 11


HERETIZ

The United States government is likely the best in the world, but is far from perfect. It is going to take time, but we can do better. For one thing, we have to discard or at least ignore our present designation of parties. We are built on the two party system, but there is no more pure Democrat, or pure Republican. We now have ALTRA Conservatives,and ULTRA Liberals on the two ends of the spectrum, with persons leaning towards conservatism, or liberalism, and moderates in between. but you will find Cons and Libs on BOTH sides of the isle.

Everybody complains but no one offers a plan so here is my case for a NEW United States Government. Obviously, There would have to be a constitutional convention, or at the very least, some new amedments to the Constitution.

Mostly the changes are in operation of the various agencies but I'll start at grass roots elections:

Local , district, and state elections would remain primarily as they are except I would favor the assembly change to a four year term of office. To become fair, equitable and and reasonable, there would have to be a change in the methods of drawing up districts (I will cover this later in the State operations section.)
Elections of US Senate and house members would again be similar to present operations, with the same requirement for extention of House terms to four years. I would also be in favor of reducing Senate terms to four years, in that it would allow 50 percent of the seats to be contested, rather than the present 33% but it is of great importance that the terns remain staggered so as only a portion would be changed in each voting session.

The major change in voting would be that The public would NOT elect the President or Vice-president. This would be done by the members of the US Senate, and the House or Representatives, in accordance with the following plan:

1. The house of representatives is composed of two Representatives from each of the congresssional districts, This is a representative (democratic) -one person/one vote system.
2. The Senate is made up of two senators from each state (a Republic form of representation.)

3. under this plan, the Senate and House would nominate and elect the President and Vice-president from a select list of canidates composed of persons who had completed a full term of service as a Senator, Representative, or Governor ( with the possibility of including past mayors of very large cities) This would do away with the present electorial college and substitute the same system in congress as the ONLY avenue to elect a president. This again is a republican form of government in that we elect representatives (Senate and house) to represent our best interests.

In addition, The house and senate would nominate cabinet menbers and high echelon government officials, who, tho they are under the command of the president, "would serve at the pleasure of the congress". and could be replaced as found necessary. This would be a built-in Checks and Balances system. (Which obviously we are in dire need of at the present time.) Certain other changes would be required at federal level.

a. The president would be primarily a spokesperson for the nation, a housekeeper to keep the governemt operating smothly (like a glorified Chairman of the board.) and figuratively, the Commander in Chief, Tho the actual duties of CIC would fall to the Joint Chiefs of staff, the congress, and the secretary of defense . The Pres would also cast the deciding vote in the senate, rather than the VEP.

b. The Vice president would have the sole duties of assisting the president, and/or substituing for, or replacing him as required
.
c. The order af assention would be changed to
* the Vice-president,
* the Chief of Staff(elected and chosen by the congress)
* perhaps the Secretary of defense
* then to the Leader of the Senate or Speaker of the house.
( it should be noted that only under the direst of circumstances would the congress be unable to quickly elect a new Vep if it was necessary.

d. I would be in favor of changing the tenure of supreme court justices, to allow them to be replaced like any other elected or appointed official.

e. Law enforcement agencies Like the CIA, FBI. and NSA, would be combined into one agency

f. The military would be combined into one service, with four basic components
(1) AIR FORCE, to include all aircraft and air craft operations.(including Naval Air and military choppers, etc.
(2) NAVY to include all duties pertaining to ships and boats
(3) ARMY for all ground-pounding, and mechanized Operations, and groundskeeping and support operations.
(4) MARINES, as Rapid response Strike force and other Special forces, all in conjuction with the other three forces as required by the situation.

Thus land bases would utilize persons from Army, Air Force, and Marine, and Possibly navy is warrented, while ships would have a complement of Army,and Navy, and would include Marines and Airforce as necessary.

g. Certain extensive RULE changes would be required in the every day operation of the House and Senate, which wiuld include that of the State assemblies as well.

(1) The Senate would have an elected leader and assistant thereto and the House and legislations would each have an elected Speaker and assistant speaker. Each would be elected from the body of that entity. and as is presently the case, would be expected to be from the then majority party,
(2) Each entity would have it's sub-commities, as is presently the case. However,
(3) No leader or full committee may decline to allow a measure to come to the floor on it's own whim, as has been the situation in the past. The originator would have the right to announce the measure on the floor, and receive at least a vote by acclaim. then if there is still a legitimate dispute as to the right to have it discussed , The originator would have to right to call for a rollcall vote. Note, because of reasonable concern for his or her future interests, that person would not be likely to call fo such a vote, unless he or she thought they had been wronged.
Futher, such votes by acclaim must be valid. with no "all ayes/allnays/the ayes have it"? votes which took all of ten seconds,and as was an all too frequent scenarior when Newt Gindrich and especially Tip O'neal were in charge.
Lastly and most importantly. Bills must be introduced separately or at least in appropriate combinations IE A school bill could not be combined with, or ammended by a weapons bill, with each issue standing on it's own. In the past, not having such a requirement was the reason much of the pork spending had been passed, and many ammended bills were allowed to get thru to be certain the major issue was passed.

It is entirely possible that I have left something out, but if I have, I am sure one of you will notice, and bring it up. Also.

THIS IS NOT THE COMPLETE PLAN.

Bringing it this far has been very time consuming, and to add more would be even more confusing, Therefore, States local and district operations will be addressed in my next post to Include Changes in
(1) Police Operations.
(2) National Guard Operations, and very importantly
(3) Cencus and district reapporionment.

All of these points will be addressed. And if additional explaination or clarification is necessary, please inquire

In the mean time, thanks for listening??? (Reading)
__________________

FORMS OF GOVERMENT POST 13Page two.-- States Rights and operations:

There are many incidental issues upon which I could comment, but are mundane day to day operations. Some, are proper subjects of inquiry and would merit discussion with the possibility of changing, recinding or diminishing states rights in favor of conformity with the rest of the states. (such as Education standards, driving regulations and rights, and welfare.) As I said, these are legitimate issues of concern, and can be discussed if desired, However, the main purpose of this post is to outline my proposed plan reguarding Police, National Guard and militias, and most importantly Congressional redistricting. I will start with:

POLICE:
It is my beleif that the public would be better served if there was a "State Office of law enforcement" which would be in overall command of all Law Enforcement units, from State Police, Highway Patrol Sheriff departments, City Police, and even special Security Police. . They would be financially outfitted and supported by the varied levels IE: State,County, city, and burg, But would receive the upper echelon support, Physically as needed, with central record keeping, ect. and Specialized training as required. Amongst other things, and partially due to standardization, this would far more economical than individual units.

NATIONAL GUARD AND MILITIAS

To me, National Guards, and militias should be standardized, Trained and outfitted and financed by the Federal givernment, --under the unbrella of the Defense department and the Military High Commander.
Military reservists (when on normal rotation duty) would be housed with the national guard, and would likely be trained with, or be the trainers of said guard.

I would change the name to "State Guardsmen", which is the original intention, and they would be under the command of the Governor for use in local situations, whether for Crowd Control, and assisting the police, or in the event of natural (or unnatural) disaster Further,
They would be subject to mobilization at any time by the Federal Government, in the event of National Emergency, (as is presently the situation)

CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING OR RE-APPOTIONMENT.

This, to me, is the most important ingredient to a Democratic form of Government. Without proper proportionment, you can throw out the one person/one vote rule, because it is no existant. I have studied and been involved somewhat in this situation for a long time. Fair apportionment is extremely simple, and available in any stete. I know this for a fact, because::

In the sixties, I lived in Illinois, and attempted to start a new politifcal party A part of my interest was the reapportionment of the State of Illinois. The (infamous) Chicago had one District which consisted of three islands in the midst of the city with two of those islands separated by another district which was shaped like a dumbell, (two large areas on the ends, and a narrriw corridor connecting them.)
I spent the better part of three weeks, armed only with census figures, and topographical and Geo-physical maps, and SINGLE-HANDEDLY completely reapporioned the State--, (at least graphically). I succeeded to the degree that every district was designed within 2 percent of the average required population of each district
Of course it was never approved, but I was even on TV with the proposal and the completed map. I had expected the then Governor, WALKER to get behind it, but he never even responded, (I was to find out later that he was in the pocket of some very powerful local leaders who didn't like my ideas. in fact I even received three threats, to stop or else.)
I have related this only to show that it is reasonablly and simply possible. but WILL NOT BE FAIRLY DONE UNDER PRESENT CONDITIONS The leaders of those districts don't want the change. However, Under my plan, it could be accomplished by:

1. Either now, using approximate or intrim census figures, or shortly after the new census is completed. Two or more teams from each state, consisting of one person from each party (the only other condition would be their ability to perform simple mathematics) would start at either end of state and work towards each other.
2. They would be provided with appropriate maps showing current infrastructure, and geophsyical maps showing city and county limits, and geographic maps showing natuaral barriers. For instance, it wiuld make little sense the create a district on both sides of a river where there were no available bridges.
3. They would be provided with the latest census figures by city, county, and locality, but would be denied any reference to Race, Creed, Nationality, Social or economic status, political affiliation, or religius preference. In short, the only guidelines allowed would be raw population figures and the afore mentioned maps for guidance.
There are those who would disagree with the disallowance of the referenced information I would deny on the basis that that is "only right and proper". But on the contrary, that is precisely what is wrong with the present system, and why incumbents, are so ofter entrenched.
4. The teams would endevour to draw the proposed districts as compact as is possible, (for logictic reasons, if nothing else), and rather than result in the shape of one present Clifornia District which runs along the coast of very expensive dwellings and businesses and where, in the midst of the district, it narrows to LESS THAN A HUNDRED YARDS (with only enough room for the Coast highway, and the Cliftside businesses). ( do you suppose that could be the result of improper redistricting??
Further, they would draw them in accordance with appropriate city or county limits where possible, and within the percentage limits allowed for deviation from the population requirements. (For instance, One district might be one % above the limit, so the next should be below the limit to compensate). When the two or more teams come together, thay should be able to have a properly completed job.
5. Then the entire prposal would be put before the State assembly for approval, or even before the voters.

OK, THIS IS THE END OF MY BEGINNING PRESENTATION, If I have left anything out, I am sure you will tell me "Have at it." AND THANKS FOR lISTENING.

[antiggill]

This is nonsense.

The idea of giving power to State and Local authorities is to ensure that the locals reps do what is in the interest of the locals.

Texans do not want neo-hippies from California telling them what to do, no more than Guidos in New York want bible beaters from Arkansas telling them what to do.

Get it?

Besides most state and municiple laws concerning major issues are generally universal anyways.

Anyways, This idea of a centralized, omni-potent govt is anti American and I assume unconstitutional.




All This coming from a Dane. Don't you have more pressing issues to worry about right now?

[Maypeevophy]

Crap! The last thing I want the US to be is more like Canada and Europe.
Jeez, it's bad enough already.
I would like the 50 states to have more not less independence from the Feds.
I would love to see the Supreme court changed from what it is today, a pos political circus to each state sending one judge to the Supreme court.
Selection, terms and all that would be up to each state, the Feds would have no input.
That will lead to a weakening of the Federal government, which is as it should be.
For God's sake, let's not look like the Europeans or the Canadians.
American courts are fine for the most part, the only thing I would change is regarding lawsuits.
I would go to a loser pays system.

[attanilifardy]

This is nonsense.

The idea of giving power to State and Local authorities is to ensure that the locals reps do what is in the interest of the locals.

Texans do not want neo-hippies from California telling them what to do, no more than Guidos in New York want bible beaters from Arkansas telling them what to do.

Get it?

Besides most state and municiple laws concerning major issues are generally universal anyways.

Anyways, This idea of a centralized, omni-potent govt is anti American and I assume unconstitutional.




All This coming from a Dane. Don't you have more pressing issues to worry about right now?

Sorry, but I'm confused, are you objecting to wallaro's post or mine??? If it is mine. I will be happy to respond.

[WenPyclenoWex]

Actually Canada just elected a government who says it will de-centralize a lot of control to the provinces.

And besides, why would you want the federal government controlling what happens in your state? Do you think California should be handled the same way as Maine?

[rasiasertew]

Anyways, This idea of a centralized, omni-potent govt is anti American and I assume unconstitutional.

I don't think it would work the way our govt. is supposed to have it's checks and balances

Yeah, it probably WOULD be against the constitution in some way(s).

What is proposed in post # 1 sounds a bit outlandish to me.

But, thats just me.

[ManituIKOL]

Actually Canada just elected a government who says it will de-centralize a lot of control to the provinces.

And besides, why would you want the federal government controlling what happens in your state? Do you think California should be handled the same way as Maine?

I must ask the same quesrtion. Which post are you questioning, and in this case, if it is mine. I don't know where you got that question.

[Dumpishchaism]

I must ask the same quesrtion. Which post are you questioning, and in this case, if it is mine. I don't know where you got that question.

Sorry about that. It was intended as a reply to Wallaroo and to simply make note that other countries are trying to change towards the US method in some respects.

As well to point out that each state across the country has different needs. Here in Canada we have provinces feeling that they are neglected by Ottawa because they have different needs and want better control over the programs that are currently run by the feds. So by de-centralizing a lot of these issues are taken care of.

[Seiblybiozy]

Thank You, you people were confusing the hell out of me.

Considering your comment, I do think that there has to be a happy medium in Federal and State (prov) control. Things like schools should be relatively uniform, while things unique to that particular area should be handled locally.

[ligaliaCods]

Thank You, you people were confusing the hell out of me.

Considering your comment, I do think that there has to be a happy medium in Federal and State (prov) control. Things like schools should be relatively uniform, while things unique to that particular area should be handled locally.

I agree, that is one of my concerns as well. In Canada, our education is controlled provincially. If I have an education in some trades in Ontario I would not be qualified to work in Alberta without going back to school because of different training systems.

[Biassasecumma]

The thread I posted is from a completely objective point of view. It has nothing to do about being American or not, right wing or left wing, its just a question about pure logic and making the American society function a lot better and more efficient.

Its obvious that the worlds 4 th. largest country, needs to have a lot of local independence, but only when it comes to laws that are depending on local conditions. Personally I have never seen America as one country, but more like 50 that are united under a lot of common values.

Centralizing the political power in the US would make America a hell of a lot stronger in all perspectives. Especially when it comes to corruption and justice for US citizens.

So all Americans: Forget that old and out of date constitution, and keep an open mind!

[PeterPatrickJohn]

OK. Meanwhile, back at the ranch =============

[NKUDirectory]

In case you didn't notice, our country is quite large. We also have many different cultures here. The Northeast is very different from the Midwest in how they want to do things, and the West Coast and the South are different as well.

The most successful countries in Europe are small. The most troubled countries in Europe are the large ones. That should tell you that increased centralization is a bad idea.

[QEoMi752]

In case you didn't notice, our country is quite large. We also have many different cultures here. The Northeast is very different from the Midwest in how they want to do things, and the West Coast and the South are different as well.

The most successful countries in Europe are small. The most troubled countries in Europe are the large ones. That should tell you that increased centralization is a bad idea.

As much local independence as possible sure, but only when it comes to laws that are actually depending on local conditions, wich most state laws are not. Neither are the court and prison systems.

When you travel from one American state to another you dont know your rights or when you are breaking the law, unless you want to read the constitution and lawbooks for every state you enter. I would personally find that werry disturbing!

[agolutuaddiff]

As much local independence as possible sure, but only when it comes to laws that are actually depending on local conditions, wich most state laws are not. Neither are the court and prison systems.

When you travel from one American state to another you dont know your rights or when you are breaking the law, unless you want to read the constitution and lawbooks for every state you enter. I would personally find that werry disturbing!

This is another case IMHO,where whether local or federal law is morer appropriate. Civil law should be state or local. Criminal law should be Federal (of course this is only my opinion).

[SQiTmhuY]

Sorry, but I'm confused, are you objecting to wallaro's post or mine??? If it is mine. I will be happy to respond.

No I was talking to our Danish friend.

[GenrieAB]

When you travel from one American state to another you dont know your rights or when you are breaking the law, unless you want to read the constitution and lawbooks for every state you enter. I would personally find that werry disturbing!

Have you traveled through the US?

Do you have personal experience in having problems with different laws in different states?

I have never heard anyone express this concern.

Laws that would apply to tourists and travelers are pretty much uniform.

[IACJdKfU]

As much local independence as possible sure, but only when it comes to laws that are actually depending on local conditions, wich most state laws are not. Neither are the court and prison systems.

When you travel from one American state to another you dont know your rights or when you are breaking the law, unless you want to read the constitution and lawbooks for every state you enter. I would personally find that werry disturbing!

We have this thing called the Bill Of Rights and that covers the entire country. What rights are you speaking of specifically?
Murder is murder, doesnt matter which state your in, same for rape, robbery, assualt, speeding, larceny, etc.....
Could you also state which laws your speaking of specifically?
Anything that can would land you in jail in California would also put you in jail in Maine.

Our country is far from perfect but LESS federal control is the ticket not MORE.

[alenbarbaf]

Im talking about that criminal laws in America should be Federal instead of state and local/county. Then America would only need one court and prison system across the country, instead of 50 different. In practcal terms that means converting all the 50 states into provinces, yet still with a lot of independence from the Federal Government on civil laws that are depending on local/cultural conditions.

It would make the hole American society much stronger instead of weak as it is now, especially when it comes to justice and respect of basic human rights. Also its a good chance to clean up in all the dumb local laws across the country. (see dumblaws.com) Laws are suppose to be rationel and serious, not something to joke with. Its important for citizens in any society to know there rights. Most Americans seems in opposite to Europeans to be very insecure of there rights.