President Donald Trump last year directed the Interior Department to make changes to parks, monuments and memorials to address any “false revision of history.”
I suppose if we kept the Senate and had the number of Senators properly apportioned, but maybe not as many as Reps, it’d be okay, if there is meant to be a more “prestigious” wing of Congress.
What I most hate about the Senate is that backwater deep red states get two senators to equal two senators from the likes of California.
If any state is going to lead this nation into the future it’s most likely California. And they grow so much of our food, to boot. I realize it’s wildly fashionable among the right since forever to have California Derangement Syndrome and want others to actually believe that something like Idaho is the equal of California (or even better, LOL). But it’s just the truth that California is not only an economic powerhouse, but a cultural one, too. And so many people live there to boot.
But they get held back by this ridiculous system where their representation in the Senate count the same as some flyover state. I’m sorry, plenty of people think it’s elitist to say this, but that’s just absurd and backwards.
Personally there’s a lot of things I’d change about our government, and a lot of things that I think need to be changed but I’m not entirely sure what would make a good replacement.
I think getting rid of the Senate makes some amount of sense, but only if paired with a number of other changes. I’d first make it clear that constitutional rights apply equally to everyone and can not be revoked, and just as importantly that corporations are not people and have no constitutional rights. Corporations can have rights but only by passing laws to explicitly grant those rights. I would make it so that congress requires a 3/4ths majority to pass a new law, but only a simple majority to repeal one. This ensures that it’s hard to restrict rights for people, but easy to remove restrictions, and conversely that it’s hard to grant rights to corporations and easy to repeal them.
I would outlaw first past the post voting for any partisan office. There are a number of other good options that could be used instead (star voting for instance seems to produce really good results), but just about anything besides FPTP is preferable.
I would remove the electoral college. It’s often justified as a bullwark against a populist leader, but that very clearly has not worked, and a better solution is to just better educate the public.
I would consider making voting mandatory, and make election days federal holidays.
I would extend the basic human rights to include access to food, water, shelter, and basic utilities such as electricity and Internet (this would not preclude having to pay necessarily, but fees should be commensurate with capability to pay them), as well as make most (all?) criminal fees and penalties be proportional to a persons wealth (thereby eliminating the current system where any crime that the penalty is a fee is only a crime for the poor).
I would severely tighten anti-monopoly laws, E.G. having an outright ban on acquisitions and mergers for any company that doesn’t have at least a dozen healthy competitors.
I would require laws to be periodically re-passed in order to stay on the books. There are far too many obscure laws that aren’t even enforced but still stick around for prosecutors to go fishing for when they decide they want to intimidate someone. The big laws, the things that violate a persons well being or rights like murder or assault could be baked into the constitution, but the small stuff like littering and jaywalking, or more controversial things should be forced to be periodically re-evaluated to decide if they still make sense today, or if they need to be rewritten or tweaked in some fashion.
There’s probably a load of other things that should and would need to be changed, but that’s just a few things off the top of my head.
I suppose if we kept the Senate and had the number of Senators properly apportioned, but maybe not as many as Reps, it’d be okay, if there is meant to be a more “prestigious” wing of Congress.
What I most hate about the Senate is that backwater deep red states get two senators to equal two senators from the likes of California.
If any state is going to lead this nation into the future it’s most likely California. And they grow so much of our food, to boot. I realize it’s wildly fashionable among the right since forever to have California Derangement Syndrome and want others to actually believe that something like Idaho is the equal of California (or even better, LOL). But it’s just the truth that California is not only an economic powerhouse, but a cultural one, too. And so many people live there to boot.
But they get held back by this ridiculous system where their representation in the Senate count the same as some flyover state. I’m sorry, plenty of people think it’s elitist to say this, but that’s just absurd and backwards.
If you don’t want a Senate, then you don’t want a federation of states. Which is fine. But it doesn’t fit how our society is currently structured.
But apportioning the Senate like they do in the House defeats the purpose entirely. Might as well just do away with it altogether.
The idea is that each state has a level of autonomy, and that doesn’t really work without a Senate.
Personally there’s a lot of things I’d change about our government, and a lot of things that I think need to be changed but I’m not entirely sure what would make a good replacement.
I think getting rid of the Senate makes some amount of sense, but only if paired with a number of other changes. I’d first make it clear that constitutional rights apply equally to everyone and can not be revoked, and just as importantly that corporations are not people and have no constitutional rights. Corporations can have rights but only by passing laws to explicitly grant those rights. I would make it so that congress requires a 3/4ths majority to pass a new law, but only a simple majority to repeal one. This ensures that it’s hard to restrict rights for people, but easy to remove restrictions, and conversely that it’s hard to grant rights to corporations and easy to repeal them.
I would outlaw first past the post voting for any partisan office. There are a number of other good options that could be used instead (star voting for instance seems to produce really good results), but just about anything besides FPTP is preferable.
I would remove the electoral college. It’s often justified as a bullwark against a populist leader, but that very clearly has not worked, and a better solution is to just better educate the public.
I would consider making voting mandatory, and make election days federal holidays.
I would extend the basic human rights to include access to food, water, shelter, and basic utilities such as electricity and Internet (this would not preclude having to pay necessarily, but fees should be commensurate with capability to pay them), as well as make most (all?) criminal fees and penalties be proportional to a persons wealth (thereby eliminating the current system where any crime that the penalty is a fee is only a crime for the poor).
I would severely tighten anti-monopoly laws, E.G. having an outright ban on acquisitions and mergers for any company that doesn’t have at least a dozen healthy competitors.
I would require laws to be periodically re-passed in order to stay on the books. There are far too many obscure laws that aren’t even enforced but still stick around for prosecutors to go fishing for when they decide they want to intimidate someone. The big laws, the things that violate a persons well being or rights like murder or assault could be baked into the constitution, but the small stuff like littering and jaywalking, or more controversial things should be forced to be periodically re-evaluated to decide if they still make sense today, or if they need to be rewritten or tweaked in some fashion.
There’s probably a load of other things that should and would need to be changed, but that’s just a few things off the top of my head.