Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal eglamkowski's Journal: Dissolving Congress 26

Journal by eglamkowski

Congress has the power to dissolve the executive branch, in a manner of speaking (impeachment).

Should the executive branch similarly have the power to dissolve congress and force new elections?

In countries with parliamentary systems, dissolving parliament seems to be a legitimate power of the prime minister. Should we have something comparable in the USA?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dissolving Congress More

Dissolving Congress

Comments Filter:

  • Y4 (Score:2)

    by ellem ( 147712 )
    Why, do we need to?

    I mean they seem OK. What are they doing you'd like to see them not do? Or vice versa?
    • It's not about anything current. On a mailing list someone was asking who in their right mind would want to be president. I said I would, so I could try to bring some constitutionality to government. They countered that I would be impeached almost immediately. I replied that if they tried such a thing, I would move to dissolve congress.
      • Well, technically the Congress is supposed to work for the will of the States. So it makes sense that the executive would be able to be impeached by Congress - the meaning is clear, the Executive serves at the behest of the States. Allowing the Executive to dissolve the Congress completely flips that implication on its ear, and seems that it would further centralize government. Blech.
      • The job of handling disolving the federal government lies in the hands of the states. Any one state can vote to form a 'constitutional congress' (virginia legally did so during the civil war) that 'congress' then drafts a new charter, in this case the 'articles of confederation.' then the state legislatures proceeed to vote on if to ratify this 'new' constitution (the congress, president, even the federal courts are all granted power By the constitution) in the case of the civil war, a minority of states c
  • Dissolving Congress is an awesome idea. I can't tell you how many times I wished there was a gigantic vat of acid under the House. A trapdoor under each member and a button for every citizen and this country would blub blub blub and fizz its way into a greater era.
  • The PM power to dissolve Parliment comes from the fact that PMs are internally nominated by the Parliment (or, in the case of the Commonwealths, IIRC it comes after the Speech from the Throne which is a test by the proto-Parlimentary government to test to see if the PM gets the thumbs up or a LOC). Because the POTUS is elected directly by the citizenry (by the Electoral College not via the Legislature), Congress does not have such power over him. The PM derivates from the Parliment; the POTUS is autonomou
  • That would turn the President into a dictator. If he could disolve Congress, he could do so every time they wanted to impeach him. Seeing as how the states are responsible for choosing their representatives anyway, it would also be undermining state rights.
    • Not often I agree with this one, and as far as it'd be nice to be able to have congress disolved sometimes, the power just simpley isn't there, and for grood reason, and I use too many commas to string partial sentences together somtimes.
    • Obviously there would have to be some limit - no more than once per term, for example. And the congress critters could just run for re-election in the special election, so there's nothing lost in terms of state's rights to representation. If the people really love their congress critters so much, they can put them back. But it would be a chance for people to reflect on their choices.
      • There would also need to be safeguards to stop the President from dissolving Congress just because Congress was going to impeach the President. Along the lines of: If Congress starts impeachment, the Pres's power to dissolve is (temporarily) removed.
  • The ENTIRE House of Representatives is up for election every 2 year. Want to dissolve Congress? It's up to "We The People" to throw the bums out.

    In fact, I'd like to encourage "We The People" to please get rid of Nancy Pelosi, please.

    • Not only that, there's a significant difference between a completely elected body dissolving an arm of government in which only one of the major players (the president) is actually a representative of the people and a single elected representative unilaterally eliminating (or trying to eliminate) hundreds of duly elected men and women.

      The fact that congress can eliminate the entire executive branch is a byproduct of the fact that almost the entire executive branch is appointed rather than elected. If people

      • In all this talk about impeachment, don't forget that the power to impeach can only be excercised by congress for the prosecution of criminal offenses. In contrast to a parliamentary system, congress does not have the power to remove an executive (or judicial, for that matter) officer for political reasons. A parliament does have the ability to remove a minister (or at least all the ministers) for simple political reasons.

        Short of a serious criminal offense, once congress has consented to the appointmen

  • Congress can impeach its own members for the same type of charges that can be levelled against the Prez, so in that since they are equal. Also Congress as entity has a good deal of power, but that power is diulted such that 435 Congressfolk have 50% of it and 100 Senators share the other 50%- so no one person can wreak the havoc that a president can. So yes, there is balance still within the system. The final means of accountability is that the voters of a district canr ecall their congressional represen
    • An even more fascinating endeavor would be for the calling of another Constitutional convention. In theory, the participants could eliminate the Constitution we have and write a completely new one. That'd be pretty fascinating to watch unfold.

      And some of us would say- long overdue. The Constitution is highly outdated- and it seems to have become impossible to amend in the last 30 years or so. When it was originally written, nobody foresaw that separation between corporation and state would become as big
      • Yep, a new constitution would be an interesting idea.

        It would also be illegal. Of course, the constitution we have now was drafted "illegally".

        Any new consitution that anyone would draft would be illegal up until the point that it came into act.
        • It would also be illegal.

          I disagree- there's plenty of common law precident for it, going back to the Magna Carta- but then again, since that was the first, would that make it illegal?

          Of course, the constitution we have now was drafted "illegally".

          It was? I thought the original articles of confederation included a new continental congress every 20 years? Since it was enacted in 1796, I'd say it was legally written and legally enacted.

          Any new consitution that anyone would draft would be illegal up
          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_ U nited_States#Legality_of_the_Constitution [wikipedia.org]

            It's apparently an issue of debate.

            Either way, the Constitutional Convention that met went outside of the bounds that they were originally expected to take.

            Either way, the point is essentially moot now, in that by all states accepting the Constitution, they reformed the nation under that Constitution. Extra-legal or not at the time, victory is the most important factor here.

            At the same time, it is against the law to
            • At the same time, it is against the law to conspire to replace our government, and a change in constitution would likely qualify as this, unless the government itself were to elect to do so. But this would require certainly much more effort than just getting an amendment through. So, it's quite unlikely to happen legally.

              I disagree- the precident set by the 2nd Continental Congress would indeed govern the 3rd. And by that- all it would take is 34 states resolving to so so (so far, 2 have that I know of-
              • I disagree- the precident set by the 2nd Continental Congress would indeed govern the 3rd. And by that- all it would take is 34 states resolving to so so (so far, 2 have that I know of- Arizona and Washington).

                But the Constitution provides no mechanism for replacement of the Constitution, only for amendment.

                Were a convention held that came up with a replacement for the Constitution, it would present an extremely difficult situation. If a state were to reject the new constitution, then would it become a par
                • It would be a litigation nightmare as every one and their mother sues for some reason or another about this whole issue.

                  Actually, I think the scenario you described would probably result in something akin to the USA circa 1861-1865, only divided along different lines.

                  Maybe we'll get lucky and Sherman will rise from the dead to burn Atlanta (AKA TurnerTown) again. It may have once been the jewel of the South, but now it's a cankerous boil on the ass of an otherwise great state ;)

                  (Hey, I lived in Atlanta/Tur
                  • (Hey, I lived in Atlanta/TurnerTown for 3 years - it really *is* an armpit)

                    Right, so this is 2 for 2 opinions that Atlanta sucks, out of all the opinons that I've heard about Atlanta.

                    I was in Atlanta shortly... mostly just saw the airport. Then Ft. Benning. So, yeah, for me Atlanta isn't filled with fond memories.
                    • Don't count on my opinion, though...to me, most (if not all) cities suck. I'll take a nice rural area over a city any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Provided I can get broadband, that is.
                    • I grew up in a suburb (Rio Rancho, a suburb of Albuquerque). I went to school in a smallish city (Las Cruces) that was only 30 minutes from El Paso. Such to the point that it could be considered a distant suburb.

                      I gotta say, I like being on the fringe of a major city. You get most of the advantages of that major city (broadband++), and you avoid the bullshit of being in a big city.

                      Now, I live in Bellevue, a suburb of Seattle. I live in the downtown area, and it's nice. It's only 0.1 miles from the huge
  • Interesting thought... Sielwolf has an interesting point though - in a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is chosen from the ranks of the House of Representatives and is actually the leader of the governing party (or parties in the case of a coalition) and not directly chosen by the people. The PM has the power to dissolve parliament, forcing an election, but this also puts his butt on the line because his seat is also up for re-election. Here in Australia we don't have fixed length terms, instead the

Slashdot Top Deals

"Survey says..." -- Richard Dawson, weenie, on "Family Feud"

Close