Post by Emily Nghiem on Apr 27, 2015 15:42:01 GMT
From PoliticalForum.com
www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=359194&page=28&p=1064961931#post1064961931
Two suggestions I have, which I propose for Constitutional conferences,
to PREVENT the need to elect and bully by EXTREME leaders of either party:
A. Divide health care by party, so both groups can exercise their political beliefs freely without threatening or imposing on each other
* prolife divided in funding/support from prochoice
* right to life divided from right to health care mandated through one central system
* free market through a set network that supports this, divided from a fixed system of govt exchanges that is managed centrally
The best part of this is there are no deadlines for trying to prove what works.
Both parties can take their time to work it out according to their member base that SUPPORTS that system and WANTS it to work.
So it will naturally take the most effective form, by removing pressure from obstructionism and objections who want to develop the other way.
B. separating the President position into External (for foreign affairs, finance global security international issues outside the US borders)
and Internal (for border issues and interstate commerce and issues on a federal level that are domestic and within the US territorial bounds)
separating the Vice President position into External (for issues affecting States that ARE on a federal level by the Constitution and do require federal govt to manage reforms and operations) and Internal (for issues that affect the federal level but belong and need to be shifted back to States, people or parties to manage on a local level due to conflicts that cannot be agreed up nationally).
If we SPECIFY that it is the Internal President who succeeds to the Presidency (and leave the VP internal and external SEPARATE where this dual office is NOT in the line of succession) then we can return to the original set up where the second place ticket wins VP and this does NOT cause a conflict with the Presidency which can also be split into a dual position for what is currently the Pres/VP. IE let the winning ticket serve as Internal/External President, splitting the duties between two partner officeholders, and let the second place ticket serve as Internal/External VP. I think the VP position would be more busy working through the Senate and all states to reform the federal govt by shifting as much as possible back to the States to manage more transparently with direct accountability to the citizens affected per state.
This also opens up an office for TRAINING leaders BEFORE running for president. It is easier to fix issues and correct reforms on Domestic and internal policies between states BEFORE taking charge of international affairs and global economy and security that can't afford a learning curve.
This will potentially stop the infighting between parties trying to grab both positions at the top.
And by separating conflicting beliefs affecting national policy by PARTY, then we can stop that infighting as well.
Use the Party system to organize the systems for people who believe in prolife or prochoice, right to life and free market
or right to choice and govt mandates, gun rights vs gun control, voting rights vs voter ID, gay marriage vs traditional marriage.
All these can be separated by party, and use the party system to TRAIN future leaders how to manage govt
by setting up their own INTERNAL adminstrations within their own parties to serve their own members on issues they believe in
but can't impose by govt because these beliefs are not shared by all other citizens who can organize their own beliefs by party as well.
So each party can become an independent network to train its own members how to manage their own administration
on policies not everyone agrees on. And have separate school systems to divide over religious issues, separate prisons
for those who don't want to fund the death penalty or don't want to manage life sentences and restitution and rehab for mentally ill inmates
houses for life, separate health care and benefits for gay marriage and prochoice supporters, while leaving alone the free market and traditional marriage system that can remain as is.
If we can even propose a pilot study or program to see if this works, I'd like to ask leaders of all parties to consult through Constitutional conferences, online and through forums on each topic to find ways to separate the policies, funding and administration where people can have what they want to pay for, but without forcing all other people and parties to pay for that if they disagree religiously.
We have to start recognizing political beliefs as separated from govt as religions are supposed to be managed separately and not imposed.
Or else we create these extreme defenses and bullying back and forth, forcing people of conflicting beliefs to defend them from imposition by the other, abusing federal govt to do so. This is unconstitutional. All beliefs and creeds should be equally free to exercise without fear of discrimination by govt.
Those are my suggestions.
www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=359194&page=28&p=1064961931#post1064961931
Two suggestions I have, which I propose for Constitutional conferences,
to PREVENT the need to elect and bully by EXTREME leaders of either party:
A. Divide health care by party, so both groups can exercise their political beliefs freely without threatening or imposing on each other
* prolife divided in funding/support from prochoice
* right to life divided from right to health care mandated through one central system
* free market through a set network that supports this, divided from a fixed system of govt exchanges that is managed centrally
The best part of this is there are no deadlines for trying to prove what works.
Both parties can take their time to work it out according to their member base that SUPPORTS that system and WANTS it to work.
So it will naturally take the most effective form, by removing pressure from obstructionism and objections who want to develop the other way.
B. separating the President position into External (for foreign affairs, finance global security international issues outside the US borders)
and Internal (for border issues and interstate commerce and issues on a federal level that are domestic and within the US territorial bounds)
separating the Vice President position into External (for issues affecting States that ARE on a federal level by the Constitution and do require federal govt to manage reforms and operations) and Internal (for issues that affect the federal level but belong and need to be shifted back to States, people or parties to manage on a local level due to conflicts that cannot be agreed up nationally).
If we SPECIFY that it is the Internal President who succeeds to the Presidency (and leave the VP internal and external SEPARATE where this dual office is NOT in the line of succession) then we can return to the original set up where the second place ticket wins VP and this does NOT cause a conflict with the Presidency which can also be split into a dual position for what is currently the Pres/VP. IE let the winning ticket serve as Internal/External President, splitting the duties between two partner officeholders, and let the second place ticket serve as Internal/External VP. I think the VP position would be more busy working through the Senate and all states to reform the federal govt by shifting as much as possible back to the States to manage more transparently with direct accountability to the citizens affected per state.
This also opens up an office for TRAINING leaders BEFORE running for president. It is easier to fix issues and correct reforms on Domestic and internal policies between states BEFORE taking charge of international affairs and global economy and security that can't afford a learning curve.
This will potentially stop the infighting between parties trying to grab both positions at the top.
And by separating conflicting beliefs affecting national policy by PARTY, then we can stop that infighting as well.
Use the Party system to organize the systems for people who believe in prolife or prochoice, right to life and free market
or right to choice and govt mandates, gun rights vs gun control, voting rights vs voter ID, gay marriage vs traditional marriage.
All these can be separated by party, and use the party system to TRAIN future leaders how to manage govt
by setting up their own INTERNAL adminstrations within their own parties to serve their own members on issues they believe in
but can't impose by govt because these beliefs are not shared by all other citizens who can organize their own beliefs by party as well.
So each party can become an independent network to train its own members how to manage their own administration
on policies not everyone agrees on. And have separate school systems to divide over religious issues, separate prisons
for those who don't want to fund the death penalty or don't want to manage life sentences and restitution and rehab for mentally ill inmates
houses for life, separate health care and benefits for gay marriage and prochoice supporters, while leaving alone the free market and traditional marriage system that can remain as is.
If we can even propose a pilot study or program to see if this works, I'd like to ask leaders of all parties to consult through Constitutional conferences, online and through forums on each topic to find ways to separate the policies, funding and administration where people can have what they want to pay for, but without forcing all other people and parties to pay for that if they disagree religiously.
We have to start recognizing political beliefs as separated from govt as religions are supposed to be managed separately and not imposed.
Or else we create these extreme defenses and bullying back and forth, forcing people of conflicting beliefs to defend them from imposition by the other, abusing federal govt to do so. This is unconstitutional. All beliefs and creeds should be equally free to exercise without fear of discrimination by govt.
Those are my suggestions.