Originally posted by jaden101
Their peers in their respective fields.
...so we'd essentially hold elections that only people of certain occupations can participate in, and then have the winner voted on by congress? Or would we have some government-backed "Society of ____" that would be in charge of selecting representatives?
Originally posted by BackFire
Didn't work out so well in Braveheart, though.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Interesting. Would you mind laying out more specifically what powers (if any) Congress would have outside of the ability to establish protections? And--assuming the states would be the ones holding the purse--how would the national government enforce those protections? How would foreign affairs (be they diplomatic or military) be conducted and funded?👆 This isn't necessarily how I'd go about it, but more checks on corruption/money in politics would definitely be my #1 addition to the constitution as it is.
Is there any reason you'd specifically limit it to three, as opposed to more? Not saying I disagree, just curious.
Then what about something along the lines of a negative income tax system?
Couldn't you just have a flat rate with the caveat that a specific amount (what is needed to cover basic necessities) is non-taxable, regardless of how much you make?
So who would be appointing these experts?
😆
You do know none of this real right? We’re just a bunch of people over the Internet shitting out ideas.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Interesting. Would you mind laying out more specifically what powers (if any) Congress would have outside of the ability to establish protections? And--assuming the states would be the ones holding the purse--how would the national government enforce those protections? How would foreign affairs (be they diplomatic or military) be conducted and funded?
As far as foreign affairs, I'm a fan of free trade, but I'll admit to a certain level of ignorance on military or diplomatic engagement so I don't really have a well informed opinion to offer there.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
...so we'd essentially hold elections that only people of certain occupations can participate in, and then have the winner voted on by congress? Or would we have some government-backed "Society of ____" that would be in charge of selecting representatives?
No. Because I already said there would be an elected chamber. It'll effectively be like the UK system. The House of Commons that is elected and The House of Lords which is currently a mix of appointed Lords and hereditary peerages. Hereditary lordships are now scrapped though so current Lords who had their position handed down to them will no longer be able to pass theirs down the family line. The appointed ones are currently chosen by the sitting government (although other opposition parties can submit recommendations) but typically they are picked under a guise of how much "public service" they have done which in truth means how much money they have donated to the ruling party.
So instead of a House of Lords I'd have a House of "Minds". A chamber full of people with expertise in all manner of fields. They won't write policy or legislation. That will be the job of the elected House. They will scrutinise it and recommend changes and point out potential consequences of proposed legislation. The elected chamber can then vote on legislation and whether to adopt it with or without the changes.
