Forum Post: the 4th branch of gov
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 3, 2011, 11:05 p.m. EST by jjuussttmmee
(607)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
We need to change government so there is a 4th branch of government called "we the people" the rest of gov can stay the same, but after a bill is written and it passed the house and senate and the prez signs it they would have 1 year to present the finished bill to us for our approval, we would give it an up or down vote, and if we approve it becomes law. The laws should be able to be read and understood by a non-lawyer (lier) in 5 minutes or less. If this happens we would get the power back that was stolen from us by the gov. Would they be able to raise their wages every year without our approval? they would have someone to answer to for once, balance restored?. They can ignore our single voices but when "we the people" speak, they will not be able to ignore us, as it will be a group bigger than all the government...... How is it that 50% of the people want something and we hear not one word out of our so called representatives in gov about OUR WANTS. The laws stay in place even thou a majority of people want it changed. A 4th branch could fix many current problems, although not all, it would be a start. We need someone to design it completely, so it can be implemented PEACEFULLY by popular vote. THINK CHANGE
There is already a fourth branch of government and it is the most powerful, the media.
they were doing their job UNTIL they got Oboma elected. I was embarrassed to watch the media fawn over Oboma, rather than do the job that was intender for them. He was no different but the media sold us out. Who owns that media and what is their midden agendas for America? They control the mind while another branch controls the money?
That's a great sentiment, but a terrible idea.
Nothing prevents the population from being just as manipulated as its representatives. Just look at a place like California, that has a similar referendum system. Special interests with big money spend millions on disinformation campaigns to manipulate the population. The result is anti-gay rights laws, and disasters like Proposition 13, which has helped destroy the public education system there.
Sadly, though my heart is with you, your system would change nothing, and could even makes things much, much worse.
we can do better if we participate in out government rather than let them decide everything
I am not suggesting letting them decide everything without our participation. I am only saying that direct democracy is subject to the same corruption, and changes nothing. Historically, in this country, it has actually done more harm than good in those places where it has been practiced.
The idea that a proposed law can understood in five minutes is wrong. Many laws have been proposed and passed that use language the general population understands one way, but whose effects are in fact the opposite. Not all areas of law are equally understood by everyone. Even in congress, committees are formed (Labor, judiciary, etc,) by people who have a particular interest or expertise of a given aspect of government. If the Senate itself can't understand the implications of all the laws it passes, and defers to experts, how can one expect the general population, not comprised largely of lawyers who understand legal language, to make their way through it all?
That ignorance has created disasters in places like California for ordinary people. I would not want those disasters extended to the rest of the country.
Again, I am not saying that our government today is not corrupt. I completely support OWS and what it stands for. But a better understanding of systems - their strengths and weaknesses - and history is needed to make the changes that are needed, not simply hoped for.
The kind specific kind of direct democracy you propose hasn't worked in the past, and is not likely to in the future.
Amen!
Here's a blueprint:
http://metapolitik.org/article/approaching-metapolitical-discourse
sounds good to me, lets move forward spread the work work out a consensus present it at a GA
Great!
Contact me through the site:
http://metapolitik.org/contact
http://www.apfn.net/doc-100_bankruptcy.htm
We don't even own our own land any more we have to pay rent to the Federal Reserve (a foreign bank) thru the IRS and taxes all institutions owned by the bank that owns Americas bankruptcy. read this article OWS should be very involved in all this. This should be the groups focus. If we are bankrupt lets let it all fall so a new debt free gov can rise in the ashes. Bankrupt since 1933! holy smokes. WAKE UP! you sleepers. But on the other hand since we are bankrupt then lets buy a bunch of stuff they can't take from us. Long vacations. and 2 day work weeks.
http://www.osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx
a link worth following police brutality to stop free speech in the US? say it ain't so!. Must be the bank that owns both he republicans and the democrats doesn't like the direction these protests are going. If that is true, then you OWSers are making a difference that is noticed by our MASTERS in the privately owned FEDERAL Reserve Bank,m and they do not like it as they could lose THEIR fortunes, that they got thu insider trading. Ghosts of the French Revolution are gathering at the Guillotines to confer, again about the problem 1%. Heads will roll in the streets again. The heads of those that stole from us and now have 586 Billion dollars as a self worth should be the first of the evil ones to face the knife. They have no food? let them eat cake.
What's wrong with lawyers?
O absolutely nothing they are above all wrong doing, unless they work for the gov....
Lawyers are doing a job just like janitors.
they make sure their fellow lawyers will have work too, by how they do business. It should not take 1/2 of our national out put every year to keep laws up to date. that's stuff lawyer s have caused us, by writing bills 2000 pages long that no one reads or can understand. Why can they not write laws that Joe Plummer can understand in 5 minutes or less?. How many words does it take to say murder is wrong? or stealing is wrong or violence against others is wrong? and how often would it need to be updated? and at what cost?
Because Joe Plummer probably didn't finish high school and may be illiterate.
so lets make sure we don't let anyone but the elite and highly educated have a say in decision making, that your opinion? Just the 1% can think?
Not at all. I just think that people that can think should be allowed to think while the people that would mess things up(I.e. Joe Plummer) should not complain about the job they are doing.
do we include everyone or not?
Honestly no. Immigrants get no say unless they are legal citizens. People on welfare are living off the government so no.
fair enough, i agree, spread this conversation and get others to agree too, then we will form focus
I've said this before nobody seems interested. Actually I was told that I was wrong about immigrants and that we should completely open up our borders and that I was a moron.
immigrants are encouraged to come here so to keep our wages low from competition with others. They don't want us to all have jobs, we will work cheaper when there is not enough jobs, THINK
I meant on this forum.
I think if someone has followed the law to get here they should be welcomed. Now we the people need input into how many immigrants are let in every year.
if we let in too many immigrants too fast unemployment will go up. Why allow ANY migration until joblessness goes down? WHY? Answer: to hold wages down for Corps.
Didn't I say the first part? Also why should we regulate the immigrants?
Dear jjuussttmmee - I address this to you with respect -
I understand your position and your solution.
You must have spent a great deal of time and effort to conclude the validity of this argument.
But - with all due respect - yours is one of hundreds of ideas I have read here that have absolutely NO chance of happening. PLEASE EXPLAIN
Exactly how would you convince the overwhelming majority of federal legislators and state legislatures to approve this constitutional amendment.
or
are you putting this forward as a theoretical improvemnt to our system.
FYI:
I see getting money out of politics as the key to bringing back the balance between government and the people - and I do believe this is achievable.
if we had a 4th branch we could get everything else we want should have and need. Just THINK we can do it, and the path will begin to appear. Why does a FOREIGN private banking company have control of our currency? Especially answer to why a FOREIGN company should have such control of our money. No wonder everyone in the world wants off of the dollar standard. Every time they print more money they steel a portion of every dollar already printed, that is in the hands of many other countries too, pure thievery, am i the only one to notice this evil thing in our midst???. How completely GREED FILLED that system is. The US will look bad but it is the FOREIGN BANK that is the "puppet master" of both the Democrats and the Republicans, who write our laws. We also need 2 new parties to replace BOTH the Dems and the Republicans. with new people. I liked seeing the Tea party emerge until the GOP took it over and ruined in by putting them under their control. THINK people while there might still be time, it might be too late to fix this. Perhaps the red shield banks will go bankrupt, but I doubt that. They are TOO EVIL TO FAIL.
O I understand the chances of a idea that comes from the general population becoming law, or even being considered, and that in itself is very sad. Gov is supposed to be for US and it clearly is not. I don't want that to stay the same, we need more control of the direction this gov is headed. I see how the gov has allowed the nation to be enslaved by MASSIVE debt to bankers. I would never allow such a control by banks over our democracy. A currency put out by OUR GOV not a private company would be a first step in reclaiming our country back from bank control (VERY IMPORTANT) why do we borrow money to run the country? such a slick deal for bankers, PURE EVIL. Open your eyes, THINK. The convincing of the majority of federal legislators and state legislatures would be the task of OWS so get to it if you can, as they have a collective voice, that some are beginning to listen to, but not yet ready to consider their changes as there is not a focus yet. I put this out there for someone else to lift up at a GA, and focus on, as I can not travel due to a car accident, but I can contribute here...
The only branch of government we need is an anti-legislation branch that is motivated to be in office by being seen as "doing something" and thus continually destroys unpopular and inefficient legislation.
we need a branch that is US (citizens). so we can have real control of the direction of this country is headed. Our 4th branch should have the power to put laws up for review by "we the people" for a up or down vote. We also need to be able to request laws to be passed and present such new laws to congress to have them work them out legally, and to have them put op for a vote. Calling your Representative in gov. doesn't seem to have ANY impact, so seems quite useless. We need to feel like we get heard when we contact gov. and we need to see things happening when we request change not more of the same pork barrel we have seen forever.
What you're describing would take a complete overhaul of the Constitution. The government could not stay the same because it would be transformed from a representative republic -- which it is now -- into a modified form of Greek democracy. As it is now, the process you describe does basically exist. Any Constitutional amendment, once passed by the House and the Senate must then be sent to the state for ratification by the state governments. Hearings must be had and there must be a certain amount of time for popular comment.
But I have to disagree with you on the issue of making changes so the people can "get the power back."
I remember interviewing John Glenn -- then US Senator from Ohio -- during the 1990's clamor for term limits. I asked him directly what his view on the bill were and his reply was "We already have term limits; they're two years in the House and six years in the Senate and they're called elections."
If we The People want the power back in elections,what we need is for The People to actually be a participant in the process as it was meant to be. But stand outside a poll sometime and ask people about the issues on the ballot -- ask them not whether they are for it or against it, but ask them what the actual issue is -- what its purpose is. Have a copy of it ready because I feel very safe in saying that not one in seven will actually know what the issue is all about. All they'll know is that they heard the commercial on TV that said it would do this or that and that's why they're for it or against it.
When I was a reporter covering state environmental legislation, every week I received a package of bills from the State House. There would be anywhere from ten to thirty pieces of legislation, at all stages of the process. On most of them – for my purposes – I could read the synopsis at the beginning of the bill and look at what stage it was in and make a quick decision as to whether I needed to pursue it at that time. Even at that, nearly an entire workday, and often some evenings, were spent combing through these bills – and that was only one subject.
My point is that it takes effort on our part to really make any form of government work and, while I believe legalese can be simplified and made more understandable, there is a reason for having it and it's not just to keep things hidden from the public; anyone who has ever covered the court system knows how narrowly things have to be defined in law. That takes special language and, at times, it gets pretty confusing.
The same effort goes for candidates. Remember that George W. Bush was elected President because a lot of people thought he'd be a great guy to sit with and have a beer while watching a football game.
The People can take electoral power back any time they want. But everyone wants some short cut or some remote control so all they have to do is spend five minutes to make decisions that affect an entire nation, and even other countries. It simply doesn't work like that. In every state – or nearly every state – the League of Women Voters put out election guides on all issues concerning the communities they serve. The guides are nonpartisan and give both-sided plain-English summaries of any issue on the ballot in that area. There are websites that are nonpartisan and that do the same thing. All one has to do is look for them and read about the anything on their ballot. Turn off the television and radio, ignore the billboard and newspaper ads and look into issues for yourself and do your homework. Yes, it takes time out of watching your favorite reality TV show or playing your addicting video game, but if you truly want electoral power back, that's what you need to do: be an informed voter who turns away from the advertising and propaganda, actually researches the issues and makes up her or his own mind rather than listening to the people who have an agenda they want to put upon us.
It's time that We The People took some responsibility for the state our country is in. When you have less than 50% of registered voters show up for any given election and they make their decisions based on blatantly propagandist – and often false – advertising, that is the biggest reason I know why our system of government isn't working.
To me, the Occupy Movement is an awakening by many of The People, realizing that we do have to take back our government. But everyone needs to realize that it isn't something that you can do by remote control – you have to get inside the machine and make sure it's working the way it needs to be working, and that putting in some sweat equity.
I completely agree. Voter apathy is the culprit. The list of factors contributing to voter apathy is long, but for the 99%, I think #1 on the list is that the two-party system leaves people feeling disenfranchised. I remember the excitement when Ross Perot showed up 20 years ago.
I'd like to see the National General Assembly. What I really like about the 99% Declaration is that is creates a parallel congress that can act as a watchdog for the 99%, re-ignite people to learn and participate, and give Republicans and Democrats one last chance to prove their worth.
Here is my list of demands:
We Are The 99%
NOw, on that level -- the watchdog level -- I agree completely that it would be valuable. I've advocated for more than 30 years the idea of a myultiparty system. Of course that's not going to happen as long as we are forced to choose between bad and worse instead of voting thrid ( or fourth or fifth party) The other problem is, of course, without a parliamentary government, the minority parties would be frozen out and would eventually just fade away. We need a governmental system that would allow for coalition governments. But, again, it would take a Constitutional amendment for that to happen.
Yes watchdog level and a place for grass roots input into the direction of gov.
You are obviously more knowledgeable about this than I, but how was Ross going to overcome this freeze out problem? (on above reply i made a mistake. it now reads 2011)
I've found this same thing true with freshmen congresspeople who are elected on what could be termed "protest votes" like Tea Party, and the so-called "Washington Outsiders from both left adn right. I think Perot, like most of them, mistook the idea that getting elected is an autmoatic mandate from the electorate.
Ohio is a good example: The governor there, Republican John Kasich, was elected by the thinnest of margins -- either one or two percent victory. With a Republican General Assembly, he began pushing through one bill after another that was unpopular. The famous SB 5 that attempted to severely limit organizing rights for publc employees. Even though there were massive protests, he didn't listen and, as a result, his popularity has plummeted.
Too many times, elected officials and candidates forget that they are there to serve both those who voted for them and those who didn't and they want to force their programs through while they have the power.
What I'm saying is that, I don't think outsider candidates realize that there is a system, with a pecking order, and fail to realize that it's not going to change just because they got electged from their district in their state. It's one of the problems with our form of government and was Obama's mistake, I think. He thought that the fact he was elected would send a signal to Washington that change was needed. But the Congress consists of people who agrred with Obama and those who did not and so things haven't changed.
More directly, I don't think anyone really can deal with the freezeout tactics. They hvae to go in expecting to compromise and get what they can as best they can, and that is what the American public needs to understand -- that our form of government relies on compromise and no one getting evertyhing they want, but everyone getting something they want.
Sorry this is so lengthy, but I wnted to be comlete.
No need to apologize. This really helps me understand the potential in the NGA concept and I thank you for your time, effort, and sincerity.
From what I understand you said here, having a congress populated by a limited number of 99rs after the 2014 mid-terms would disappoint people because they would not see any massive change. It could backfire. So if the elected 99rs can't convey the freeze out they will experience to their districts, they would be at great risk in 2016. The alternative would be to not run in 2014 but instead maintain the 'watchdog' role and build momentum following 2012 and the mid-terms to sweep in 2016. I think that would be where the #occupy movement could really help. Keep the pressure on by smart in-your-face actions exposing corruption and pointing people to the NGA all the time. Perhaps there might be an ARTICLE V Convention in there too? thx
I think we as voters and candidates have unrealistic expectations of just what a newly elected official can do. Campaign promises are made and when not kept, people blame the person who made them. What needs to happen is that candidates need to keep their "promises" realistic ("I am going to fight for . . ." or I will work hard for . . .") and for voters to stop thinking their little world is the only one that needs to be considered.
I think also that you are exactly right about elected 99ers. If they can't get those who elect them to understand that process, then they are going to be seen as failures or corrupt. One of the troubles all newcomers face in Congress is the pecking order. You ahve to be a second term Representative (unless you ahve very good connections) before you can get any sort of responsible committee assignments (and committee assignments are where the real power lies and where the real action takes place). So, new people get in thinking their going to introduce bills, give speeches and be able to persuade their fellow Representatives or Senators and they get slapped in the face with teh reality that they are nobody -- an upstart who is still, in terms of Washington, wet behind the ears. This is very disillusioning to the newcomer and only those who go in realizing this system or those who are tough enough to stick it out ever really succeed.
I completely agree with your assessment of what the movement needs to do -- I really think it can be very effective as a watchdog/activist organization. I might also consider a political party based on the Occupy movement but only loosely attached -- sort of like the German Green Party.
this bears repeating, let me..Too many times, elected officials and candidates forget that they are there to serve both those who voted for them and those who didn't and they want to force their programs through while they have the power. O be length it is good
Thanks!