As anyone who follows politics or the news knows, the United States has had political instability over the past several years; further, the American federal government has had issues operating and debates over the fairness of the American political system. In this post, the first dealing with politics, I will suggest several changes to the federal government and our electoral systems. These changes might help restore faith in the American system and improve the political stability of the United States and allow the United States federal government to be more effective and govern the nation. The first portion of the federal government I shall make proposals for is the legislative branch. Followed by the judiciary, then the executive, elections in general, and other sundry issues.
Suggestions for the legislature
The Senate with unequal representation is un-amendable
according to the Constitution. I suggest the fact that California has 40
million residents while Wyoming has only 500,000 is the entire reason the Founding
Fathers created unequal representation in the Senate. The only suggestion I
have relating to the Senate deals with the filibuster. My suggestion is to
restore it to a speaking action, as it used to be[i]. This would
ensure that the minority in the Senate could stop something they fundamentally
disagreed with and ensure that those laws that are not fundamentally opposed
will be able to be moved forward through the Senate for an up or down vote. The
filibuster should strictly be reserved for proposals that the political
minority deemed extremely necessary to undertake such a drastic and difficult
action[ii].
Now to tackle the House of Representatives. I only have one significant suggestion for the House, expanding its size. Presently the House of Representatives is capped at 435 members has been this way since 1929. While the Founders' original plan of one representative per 10,000 citizens would create a legislature of well over 1000 members, which would make it impossible for the House to function. Due to this there should be a cap on the size of the House of Representatives to ensure it can continue to function[iii]. Presently with 435 members, the House has fallen behind our other peer democracies in size; for example, the German legislature's lower House has 709 members, in the British House of Commons has 650. I would suggest that we should increase the House to 855 members as this would do two things. It would give more power to those states with a larger population, as the Founders intended, in both the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. It would also lower the number of constituents per representative, which would help these members serve the United States citizens better. An increased House will also allow for a more diverse set of individuals to be part of the legislative process, which would improve the laws our nation enacts and provide for a more comprehensive number of voices in the lawmaking process.
Suggestions for the American judiciary
The number of circuit court judges should be increased as
has been repeatedly suggested and requested by legal scholars and judges, and
other members of the American judiciary. This is a simple process that should
take place over a certain number of years to ensure that the judicial branch
can expand organically and continue to function without growing pains.
While this might not make everyone happy, it is far better to intelligently and
organically expand the lower-level Federal courts than simply increase their
size all at once. A moderately paced increase would allow Congress to react to
issues that arise and redirect the size of courts as needed.
The
geographic size of Federal Circuit Courts should also be reviewed. As has been
suggested about the 9th Circuit Court, it might be necessary to split up
circuit courts to decrease the caseload. The nation should not be afraid to
increase or decrease circuit courts as needed.
In my opinion, the size of the Supreme Court is perfectly
fine at nine justices. However, I have no issue with increasing the size of the
court. If this were to be done, it should be made a Constitutional amendment
that permanently fixes the court's size. If we are to expand the size of and
Supreme Court, it should be no larger than fifteen members, as I think that is
the largest practical size that the Supreme Court can function with. If we do
decide to increase the size of the Supreme Court, I would suggest that every
presidential term, a president can nominate two justices to fill the additional
seats in addition to any vacancies on seats that have already exist. This will
ensure that the legitimacy of the courts' expansion and that expansion is not viewed
as flagrantly political. Constitutional amendment would prevent
court-packing in the future and maintain the court's integrity. I do not
believe in term limits for the courts because they are quite frankly
unconstitutional. It is useful for justices to be completely independent of the
political system proper even though courts are political to an extent[iv].
The final suggestion I have for the judiciary ties in
with the legislature. At all levels, including Supreme Court Justices, judges
should be required to notify the president eighteen months in advance of their
retirement or resignation. This would allow the president to nominate a
replacement and will enable the legislature plenty of time to vet the nominee
and will enable the nominee, if confirmed, to quickly fill the empty seat and
allow the judiciary to continue to function at maximum efficiency. The
president should be required to forward a nominee to the Senate within six
months of receiving the notice of retirement or resignation. The Senate
committee that reviews such nominations would have four months to conduct a
complete investigation of the nominee and an additional month to conduct live
hearings and hold a vote. This would allow more than adequate time for a
nominee to be vetted by the Senate committee. If the committee forwards the
nomination to the full Senate, the Senate will be required to act upon the
nomination within eight weeks. This would allow for more than adequate time for
the Senate to ensure it can adequately vet any nominee and bring forward a vote
promptly to ensure that vacancies within the judiciary are limited. There can
be some specific rules that state when the Senate does not have to act upon presidential
nominees, such as within a specific time frame close to presidential elections,
say 4 to 6 months. A timeline such as the above will allow the
speedy and efficient filling of vacancies in the judicial branch and create a
framework for everyone to work.
Other suggestions
One of the contentious issues right now is stated for the
District of Columbia. It should be clear that constitutionally this would be an
issue as the Constitution strongly implies that the Federal Capital should not
become a state. Furthermore, the 23rd Amendment, which gives electoral votes to
DC, would have to be repealed if the District of Columbia became a state. To
fix this issue and avoid the constitutional problem District of Columbia should
be counted as part of Maryland's representational purposes in Congress. They
get to elect their voting representative to the House and vote for Maryland
Senators. This would require no constitutional changes and would allow the
citizens living in District Columbia to have a say in the federal government
and ensure DC remains a separate enclave that allows its unique roles and
responsibilities to be continued without interruption.
Puerto Rico should get statehood. We have owned Puerto
Rico for hundreds and twenty-two years; it is high time that we grant them the
statehood they so richly deserve and are now asked for. We should also grant
statehood to any other territory that desires it.
I would eliminate primaries and return more power to the
political party's leadership. While this will make it harder for disruptors to
get elected, this is not entirely a bad thing. While it is often believed that
more democracy is better democracy, this is not always the case. Grassroots
funding, for example, has created more democracy but is not created better
democracy as being an extreme brings in more money than being a moderate. Furthermore,
I think grassroots funding will offset the power that political parties will
have in selecting who runs by allowing disruptors to get enough money to
compete in general elections against party-sponsored opponents. Instead
of the winner taking all the electoral college, we would suggest awards
electoral votes via congressional district with the popular vote winner for the
state getting the two senatorial electors. This would be much
closer to what the Founding Fathers intended for the electoral college, to
begin with, and would also federalize the present selection even more. If
congressional districts rewarded electoral votes, it would give Republicans a
reason to campaign in blue states and Democrats to campaign in red states. This
would allow voters in every state to influence the presidential election more
than they do now and preserve the federal character of a presidential election.
Further, elections should be Federally mandated paid
holidays (within the usual exemptions: police, doctors, etc.) to encourage and
allow people to vote, and all elections should be held on the same day. This is
not the case presently: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-suppress-the-vote/. Having everything on the same day (within reason)
will ensure that everyone who desires to vote does so. We should make voting as
easy as possible for those who choose to exercise that civic duty.
The final suggestion I have would require amending the
Constitution, extending terms. Presently, with Representatives being elected
every two years, it creates pressure upon them to constantly raise money and
spend time away from Washington and requires them to continuously seek more
attention to raise money to remain in office. While we should expect our
representatives to come back to the districts to interact with their
constituents increasing the length of congressional terms will help remove some
of this pressure and focus on legislating and seeking solutions for problems. I
would suggest it might be good to raise house terms from two years to four,
presidential terms from four years to six, and senatorial terms six years to
eight. This, I do not think, is necessarily required; I think it
might be a good idea, but I do not believe this is necessary. Increasing
the House's size and set out a framework for nominating justices will resolve
many of the issues our government now faces and restore legitimacy and faith in
our system.
Conclusion
I hope you found my suggestions interesting. I think most
of these are reasonably good ideas (they are mine, after all!) that will help
our system function better. Please, if you have any suggestions, questions, or
comments, please put them below. I am more than happy to discuss these ideas. I
do not claim that they are perfect or entirely correct, but I think they
generally would work, and everyone of good faith in this nation could support
them. I would have a short post to your coming up about how I will do book
reviews on this blog as I intend to try to start doing some of them doing some
of those soon. Until next time I hope you had a good time reading this.
[i] In
other words, if you really want to stop a bill in the Senate you will have to
go through the physical pain and annoyance of literally talking for hours on
end, and the careful coordinated action required to sustain a filibuster.
[ii]
If you have to go through the pain and logistical issues above you are more likely
to compromise and less likely to opposing things for purely political ends.
[iii]
Yes I know that China’s legislature has almost 3,000 members, but we all know
its just a rubber stamp for who ever is the head of state in China.
[iv]
And they always will be, as they do deal with political questions, that is
point of life tenure: to help insulate judges from the whims of the people, who
can (and have) supported really bad ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment