Thread: Checks and balances on an "empirical" government

WHY do we need checks and balances? What should they be in our constitutional system of government? Do we still have them? Have we lost any?

We need checks and ballances for Constitutional actions. For instance, even though the president is the commander in chief of the military, the Congress still must declare wars.

We also need checks and ballances so when the Constitution is altered legally to allow for more federal government functions that those functions are carried out well.

I mean, what other type of government should there be without checks and ballances? Mob democracy? or an ellected dictator for your years?

It just seems like a no brainer to have checks and ballances to me.


I think we still have them all, but there can't be correct ballancing if all of the branches have major problems.

Originally Posted by lakeman

WHY do we need checks and balances? What should they be in our constitutional system of government? Do we still have them? Have we lost any?

Am I hearing this correctly?

You really don't know the answer to that question?

And you're an American? Hm....

No wonder these Republicans are falling for snake oil - they don't even understand BASIC PRINCIPLES anymore!!!

Well, Jeez - I'm here to help, son!

Checks and balances are in place for one reason only: it's because NO ONE can be trusted, when it comes to being an "elected representative".

Rule number one: always stare reality straight in the face. People are made of this little thing called "human nature", and it's the same everywhere, and all people are basically the same. Anyone who gets anywhere NEAR the reins of power, will be tempted to do something selfish and probably "against" the interests of the People. In EXTREME cases, that would include things like trampling on the Constitution and trying to sieze or maintain power through ILLEGAL means.

LIKE that scumbag Bush, with NINE Constitutional violations (to date), and his term isn't even OVER yet!

But I have a feeling you already know this. So, why are you asking?

Originally Posted by Nerv14

We need checks and ballances for Constitutional actions. For instance, even though the president is the commander in chief of the military, the Congress still must declare wars.

Executive Branch versus Legislative Branch. Ok that sounds like a good one. It is in the constitution. And we still have it.

We also need checks and ballances so when the Constitution is altered legally to allow for more federal government functions that those functions are carried out well.

I am not sure I get this one. Are you saying that when there is an amendment to the constitution, in order to make sure that the larger federal government that results does it's job effectively we need checks and balance? How does this work? Do you have an example?

I mean, what other type of government should there be without checks and ballances? Mob democracy? or an ellected dictator for your years?

Are you saying that without checks and balances we might devolve into mob rule or dictatorship? I can see the latter, but how would a lack of checks and balances on the government reasonably result in mob rule?

It just seems like a no brainer to have checks and ballances to me.

To me too. But I want to dicuss it to learn more about how people think.

I think we still have them all, but there can't be correct ballancing if all of the branches have major problems.

I am not so sure we still have them all. And I agree that the correct balance of the three branches of gov cannot be balanced if all three of them are screwed up. For example if all three branches were run by members of the same party what sort of balance would there be?

Also, since the amount of power of the three branches of federal government have been in an escalating spiral since the day they were created who is supposed to balance out the federal government?

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Checks and balances are in place for one reason only: it's because NO ONE can be trusted, when it comes to being an "elected representative".

Yes I agree.

So does this guy:
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."
-- James Madison in The Federalist

Do you trust your elected officials. What sort of vetting have you done on the few congressmen who would represent you, or the two candidates for President? Does the media help you to do this?

Rule number one: always stare reality straight in the face. People are made of this little thing called "human nature", and it's the same everywhere, and all people are basically the same. Anyone who gets anywhere NEAR the reins of power, will be tempted to do something selfish and probably "against" the interests of the People. In EXTREME cases, that would include things like trampling on the Constitution and trying to sieze or maintain power through ILLEGAL means.

Are you arguing in favor of limiting power to elected officials? Are you arguing against electing officials with extreme views?

LIKE that scumbag Bush, with NINE Constitutional violations (to date), and his term isn't even OVER yet!

It would be apparent that he is either guilty of what you say and the checks and balances are not working at all or that he is not guilty of what you say.

Assuming, for sake of discussion, that he is guilty who are the checks supposed to protect? Do they protect the various branches or the people. Do the people have a responsibility to make an appeal to themselves?

We don't need em. Debate is a bad thing. It's better for all of us when the Legislative and the Executive agree. We get more things passed

Originally Posted by freckles

We don't need em. Debate is a bad thing. It's better for all of us when the Legislative and the Executive agree. We get more things passed

Hell one better, let's just go to a flat out dictatorship. I mean it cost allot for the phoney congress to try to think they can have checks and balances anyway, no mater what they cave. So lets save some money and Obama can make all the rules.

Originally Posted by lakeman

It would be apparent that he is either guilty of what you say and the checks and balances are not working at all or that he is not guilty of what you say.

Assuming, for sake of discussion, that he is guilty who are the checks supposed to protect? Do they protect the various branches or the people. Do the people have a responsibility to make an appeal to themselves?

Yes! Well, let's see, I've given you my little "shtick" on this topic already, but, I can easily do it again....

In a nutshell: (all IMO, of course) - I would say, that the "checks and balances are not working". This is supposed to be government structured for INTERNAL DISSENT. There are many, MANY, principles in this regard, that seem to have been FORGOTTEN for the sake of whatever expediency-du-jour.

Here is one example (just pulling one randomly off the top of my head): the structure of the intelligence agencies. Prior to 9/11, there 14 of 'em!!! And, now, there's one - it's called, the Department of Homeland Security.

This is kind of the "intelligence version" of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill that caused so much damage, by "tearing down the walls" between compartments of the economy.

Similarly, in the intelligence agencies, there is a REASON for having 14 of 'em THAT OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY AND DON'T TALK TO EACH OTHER!!!

And I mean, our illustrious President, had an "operational" need, to get these agencies to share information after 9/11 - but what he did instead of addressing "JUST" that problem, is he actually CONSOLIDATED the entire intelligence apparatus of the United States!

See now, THAT, while it may have seemed at the time to be an "Expedient and Useful" thing to do (and you know, Karl Rove would slam it down our throats by saying that "anyone who thinks otherwise can't be a real American"), actually SEVERELY HAMPERS the ability of the President of the United States to "trust" the intelligence he's getting.

Dude - intelligence agencies are POWERFUL. They are very, very powerful. They can break the law, they can kill people, they can get hold of all kinds of "black money", I mean, these clowns do some really hairy stuff in the name of protecting the People of the United States.

The reason you have 14 of 'em, is the same reason you have "peer review" in science - it's so you get LOTS of eyes on something - and they're all INDEPENDENT observers, so, if you get 14 sets of eyes and they all reach the same conclusion, that's "very reliable", your confidence level is probably quite high.

If none of those 14 pair of eyes see things the same way, then, it kinda tells you that no one really knows what's going on, and "maybe" one of the models is correct, maybe not - so, you start lookin' through 'em and identifying the pieces that need to be shared, and then share ONLY those pieces within the compartments that are allowed to access them - know what I'm sayin'? This is how the game is played, it's codified, strucutured, goes through levels of security clearance and all that -

So now, you've got ONE intelligence agency, and "whatever it says, must be the truth".

Kinda the same thing, as a totalitarian government, if you want to look at it that way.

See, so, in our government, we have only 3 compartments (not 14), but there is a FOURTH that is often overlooked, and that is the People itself.

How this is SUPPOSED to work, is that the President is given enough power so he can pretty much go off an do WHATEVER HE WANTS, there are really very few Constitutional restrictions on his behavior. However, Congress holds the purse-strings and they're not going to fund anything too wayward - and if they do, the Judges can still step in if they have a reason to - and the ULTIMATE check and balance, is the citizen militias that are the subject of the Second Amendment.

Dude, READ your American history. Tar and feathers, and mobs waving pitchforks - those things really happened! And, they should be happening NOW - there's no reason that we should buy into this DRIVEL from the elected weasels that "the only way we can exercise democracy is to vote".

That's BULLSHIT, son. That's the pacification double-speak of the New World Disorder.

How things work around here, is that We the People own this nation, and if anyone tries to take it from us, WE RIDE 'EM OUT OF TOWN IN TAR AND FEATHERS.

We don't lie down for these scum. Never! NEVER AGAIN!!!

See?

Lakeman, you seem to be a well-meaning individual, my take on you is you're um.... "trusting" in certain areas of government, and when it comes to politicians.

Watch out for the snake oil, pal. There's not ONE of these weasels that's true to form, NOT ONE! No party "owns" the lecherous scumbags, that's just a part of human nature and it comes with the territory - EVERYONE does it, and that's why, we really REALLY need our elected weasels to OBEY THE RULES, and PLAY BY THE RULES, and when they get out of hand, we gotta whack 'em.

Dude, that is the INTENT of the Constutiton - that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work!

And I mean, anyone who tells you otherwise, is either historically ignorant, OR, they have an agenda of some sort.

Word.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

In a nutshell: (all IMO, of course) - I would say, that the "checks and balances are not working". This is supposed to be government structured for INTERNAL DISSENT. There are many, MANY, principles in this regard, that seem to have been FORGOTTEN for the sake of whatever expediency-du-jour.

Ok, so the government is not working. Should we the people make this dysfunctional government more powerful or should we lessen it's power?

Should the powers of the president be expanded or should the powers and rights of the people be expanded?

Should the budget of the dysfunctional government be made larger or smaller? Should income taxes for all be reduced to say 10% or increased to say 50%?

Should this dysfunctional government take over health care, should it expand faith based programs, should it be responsible for regulating more than it does now, should we nationalize the energy industry, should the Pres establish a volunteer national service program that is as large as the present armed forces, should welfare and social security be expanded, etc.?

Here is one example (just pulling one randomly off the top of my head): the structure of the intelligence agencies. Prior to 9/11, there 14 of 'em!!! And, now, there's one - it's called, the Department of Homeland Security.

[]

So now, you've got ONE intelligence agency, and "whatever it says, must be the truth".

Kinda the same thing, as a totalitarian government, if you want to look at it that way.

I won't quibble. In general that makes sense. Would you apply that same logic to all government agencies?

See, so, in our government, we have only 3 compartments (not 14), but there is a FOURTH that is often overlooked, and that is the People itself.

How this is SUPPOSED to work, is that the President is given enough power so he can pretty much go off an do WHATEVER HE WANTS, there are really very few Constitutional restrictions on his behavior. However, Congress holds the purse-strings and they're not going to fund anything too wayward - and if they do, the Judges can still step in if they have a reason to - and the ULTIMATE check and balance, is the citizen militias that are the subject of the Second Amendment.

Dude, READ your American history. Tar and feathers, and mobs waving pitchforks - those things really happened! And, they should be happening NOW - there's no reason that we should buy into this DRIVEL from the elected weasels that "the only way we can exercise democracy is to vote".

That's BULLSHIT, son. That's the pacification double-speak of the New World Disorder.

How things work around here, is that We the People own this nation, and if anyone tries to take it from us, WE RIDE 'EM OUT OF TOWN IN TAR AND FEATHERS.

We don't lie down for these scum. Never! NEVER AGAIN!!!

Again I won't quibble. I am all for more mistrust of government as a principle.

See?

Lakeman, you seem to be a well-meaning individual, my take on you is you're um.... "trusting" in certain areas of government, and when it comes to politicians.

IN principle I am all for mistrust of government. I am especially for mistrust of individuals who demonstrate without partisanship that they are not to be trusted. No one needs to be tarred as long as there is recourse. And we won't need to appeal to revolt or refreshing the tree of liberty with blood as long as we fight for every check and every balance tooth and nail.

There are some checks we all have not discussed yet. Perhaps the time is now. Anyone want to suggest some more?

Watch out for the snake oil, pal. There's not ONE of these weasels that's true to form, NOT ONE! No party "owns" the lecherous scumbags, that's just a part of human nature and it comes with the territory - EVERYONE does it, and that's why, we really REALLY need our elected weasels to OBEY THE RULES, and PLAY BY THE RULES, and when they get out of hand, we gotta whack 'em.

Seems that the first thing to do would be to not give them the tools to abuse us. If they are not strong enough to break the rules in the first place we won't need to whack em down when they get out of hand. WE can't even give the power to the benevolent leaders because the next one in office inherits his predecessors powers.

Dude, that is the INTENT of the Constutiton - that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work!

You understand this well. Which candidate do you think is more for limited government? Which one will expand the powers of government most?

Originally Posted by michaelr

Hell one better, let's just go to a flat out dictatorship. I mean it cost allot for the phoney congress to try to think they can have checks and balances anyway, no mater what they cave. So lets save some money and Obama can make all the rules.

I like the way you think! Its like Hitler said, (im paraphrasing) "I support democracy, I am just going to simplify it."

Originally Posted by lakeman

Executive Branch versus Legislative Branch. Ok that sounds like a good one. It is in the constitution. And we still have it.



I am not sure I get this one. Are you saying that when there is an amendment to the constitution, in order to make sure that the larger federal government that results does it's job effectively we need checks and balance? How does this work? Do you have an example?

I mean that if Congress would actually follow the Constitution and get an amendment to have a new power, then checks and ballances would be important to not allow one party to alter the program in any way that they see fit.

(such as Republicans cutting a program too much or Democrats growing it too much)

Theoretically, those things would be limited with checks and ballances.

Are you saying that without checks and balances we might devolve into mob rule or dictatorship? I can see the latter, but how would a lack of checks and balances on the government reasonably result in mob rule?
To me too. But I want to dicuss it to learn more about how people think.

I can see a mob rule from one branch of the government getting completely controlled by... populists for instance, and they pass all sorts of harmful legislature to redistribute land or something.

Checks and ballances in the Supreme Court or the Executive Branch would have the power to strike it down as Unconstitutional or just veto it.

I just see mob democracy as turning into an extreme version of either political parties, and checks and ballances should stand in the way of that.

At least when the parties aren't extreme then there is a natural check and ballance inside of each branch, but there needs to be larger checks and ballances in case an extreme movement becomes incredibly popular.

I am not so sure we still have them all. And I agree that the correct balance of the three branches of gov cannot be balanced if all three of them are screwed up. For example if all three branches were run by members of the same party what sort of balance would there be?

Also, since the amount of power of the three branches of federal government have been in an escalating spiral since the day they were created who is supposed to balance out the federal government?

That is a major problem. Checks and ballances only work when at least one branch still has some right ideas, and if anything, now checks and ballances will harm "radical" movements to reduce the power of the federal government.

If Ron Paul becomes president he will still have to deal with Congress to pass his crazy shit and also cut the federal government.

So checks and ballanes do make the government less adaptable, but I think it is better for a government to be slow and steady instead of having a voting revolution every term.