Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

[scottydog]

Can you envision a scenario where you would vote for a candidate with a known mental disorder?

I think so, yes. A President could be effective while being "on the spectrum", e.g., Asperger's Syndrome. Or they could have bipolar disorder -- with the right meds, such a person could be a brilliant leader.

Would you agree?

[RJDiogenes]

Sure. I was thinking specifically of an agoraphobic president-- he might do a better job if he never leaves the White House.

What would you think about a president with multiple-personality disorder running as both a Democrat and Republican?

[scottydog]

Well such a question does harken back to your dislike of a candidate having to pass a mental health test to become president. What if during a presidency the president becomes mentally ill? If you don't believe a mental fitness test should be pass prior to a presidency, what about during?

Come to think of it, surely there must be provisions about this eventuality.

[RJDiogenes]

There is a provision in there to remove a president who is unable to perform his duties, including reasons of mental incompetency, but it's a pretty high bar.

Do you think the Supreme Court should have the authority to remove a president from office?

[scottydog]

Given our current Supreme Court, definitely no But when the court composition is to my liking, yes

Do you think our experience with Trump has taught us that our system of checks and balances needs to be tightened up or at least tweaked a bit? Does the President have more authority today than the Founding Fathers intended?

[RJDiogenes]

Yes, the president definitely has more authority than the Founding Fathers intended. They anticipated that all elected officials would be patriots and they put systems in place to eject anybody who wasn't. They didn't anticipate warring political parties who put their country last. This is what I was getting to with my question about the Supreme Court. The Administrative Branch has a mechanism to remove the president, and the Legislative Branch has a mechanism to remove the president-- shouldn't the Judicial Branch have one also?

[scottydog]

What might be the procedure for the Judicial Branch to remove a President? Maybe the Supreme Court should have the right to convene at any time they deem necessary to vote, not to remove a President, but to impeach or initiate a criminal investigation or start some process of removal.

What are your thoughts?

[RJDiogenes]

I'm still thinking it through. The thing about the Supreme Court is that it is not empowered to take the initiative (except in the sense of declining to hear cases). Either cases come up from a lower court or, in rarer instances, are brought directly to them, but they cannot unilaterally intervene. They could be given the power to initiate impeachment proceedings as a ruling, I suppose, if somebody brought a case against the president-- but that would just put it back in the hands of Congress. But if the Vice President and the majority of the cabinet can remove a president from power, the Supreme Court should have the same ability, providing that it results from a case brought before them (which they would still have the authority to decline).

Can you think of any other checks and balances that should be built into the Constitution?

[scottydog]

Well, if we agree that the President has too much power, we could check it by limiting the number of executive order he can give, or by reducing the number of pardons he can give. Another limit might be a one-term limit.

What are your thoughts?

[RJDiogenes]

I don't like the idea of putting quantitative limits on powers, but I might be open to the idea of putting qualitative limits on powers. It's been suggested in the past that there be one six-year term, instead of two four-year terms, but I think that can backfire-- if that had been adopted we'd still have two more years of The Donald ahead of us, with probably another half dozen impeachments to look forward to.

What about Congress having veto power over executive orders and pardons, just as the president has veto power over legislation, but requiring a two-thirds majority?

[scottydog]

^ I actually like that idea, especially the 2/3 majority part.

In Star Trek, aren't there always advanced intelligent species, like the Organians, who are ruled not by a single person but by a wise council of elders? Why not abolish the single-person presidency and have a presidential council consisting of three or five people. If we did this, how might the composition of the council be determined by vote?

[RJDiogenes]

I'd have to refresh my memory on this, but I think there was some discussion during the Constitutional debates about there being a joint presidency. I know I've read several alternate-history stories where there was a dual presidency. I think there's some symmetry to an Executive Branch that has a council of nine co-presidents, like the nine justices of the Judicial Branch. There are a few pluses and minuses that I can think of off the top of my head. There would be no need for a vice president, for one thing. They should not be all on the same ticket and elected separately, which would be good-- but could also be bad, if any of them decided they were only representing their part of the country, as Congress Critters do. Most of all, I wonder how limber a government could be with multiple heads of state. Of course, you could always structure it to take advantage of the inevitable: Say, five co-presidents with one Chief President and then Presidents of the North, South, East, and West. But that kind of makes them sound like wicked witches more than presidents.

How about a streamlined government of five presidents as above, one senator from each state, no house, and nine justices?

[scottydog]

Say, five co-presidents with one Chief President and then Presidents of the North, South, East, and West. But that kind of makes them sound like wicked witches more than presidents.

omg, I was drinking tea when I read this and nearly spewed it all over my keyboard

How about a streamlined government of five presidents as above, one senator from each state, no house, and nine justices?

How would those five presidents make a decision -- would they need to be unanimous? Or would simple majority (3 out of 5) do?

And wouldn't one senator from each state be unfair to states like California with massive populations? To be honest, the best way to solve THAT problem might be to carve up California into 8 different states of 5 million each.

[RJDiogenes]

omg, I was drinking tea when I read this and nearly spewed it all over my keyboard

How would those five presidents make a decision -- would they need to be unanimous? Or would simple majority (3 out of 5) do?

It would have to be a majority. Nothing would ever happen waiting for a unanimous vote.

And wouldn't one senator from each state be unfair to states like California with massive populations? To be honest, the best way to solve THAT problem might be to carve up California into 8 different states of 5 million each.

Well, that's the issue with being a union of multiple states. The Senate was created to give every State equal power regardless of size, and the House is based on population. Maybe a streamlined House would work better.

Thinking about applying the logic of a bicameral Congress to presidential elections: How about if they counted both the electoral and popular vote, and accepted the one with the greatest margin?

[scottydog]

^^ That's a novel idea. Isn't is almost always going to be the electoral vote, though?