If You Could Rewrite the US Constitution

[Grey Fox]

It's better than having a weird half measure President like Germany does.

[Admiral Yi]

It's better than having a weird half measure President like Germany does.

I don't see the point of either one.

[mongers]

I was keen to put forward the West German constitution because iirc it was mainly written by the Americans and the British. 

[Grey Fox]

It's better than having a weird half measure President like Germany does.

I don't see the point of either one.

To keep from having an executive Head of State. That is way worse.

[grumbler]

I was keen to put forward the West German constitution because iirc it was mainly written by the Americans and the British. 

The Germans had a figurehead head of state in the Weimar republic, whose constitution was written by neither the Americans nor the British.  I'd say that the reason the West German government had that structure was because that was the way Germans did their governments.

[grumbler]

It's better than having a weird half measure President like Germany does.

I don't see the point of either one.

You don't see the point of having a head of state that doesn't serve at the whim of the leaders of the political parties?

I think that the idea is that the head of state is supposed to provide continuity and a sort of final check on unbridled populism.

[Sheilbh]

I don't see the point of either one.

Someone to do the dignified/head of state stuff. It increases the respect for that side of things if they're not involved in day-to-day politics and, if they're not involved in day-to-day politics, they're less likely to politicise those bits of the state. Also Presidents in systems like Ireland's and I assume Germany or Israel have some quite important constitutional powers, if they're not a "political" figure it makes it easier and more legitimate for them to use those powers, because it's unlikely to be (or be perceived) as just for political advantage.

In general American presidents have always been good at knowing when they're acting like a head of government and when the head of state. Trump has managed that less well.

I personally really like the benign President with limited (but important) powers like Germany, Ireland etc.

I don't know what I'd change about the US constitution. I think I'd have a requirement that Congress legislates for maximum terms for federal officeholders and judges. Aside from that I think I'd mainly suggest formalising a lot of the stuff about how the government works that isn't actually in the constitution but has emerged as convention over the last 100 years or so. I think those conventions have been useful ways of government operating, but with a codified constitution they're not very protected and it doesn't take much to break conventions. Some conventions are just the frillly things around the operation of the state and others are actually quite important. I'd also probably codify more of Congress's oversight role and the executive's obligation to cooperate - it'd still end up in the courts.

I get the frustration about the Senate and desires to change that but its purpose is to act as a minoritarian block on the passions of the people, expressed in the House. I don't know that it's not acting as it's intended to and I'm not sure that block is necessarily a bad idea. I think it's really difficult to change that if the Senate has a democratic mandate - and they do - that is equivalent to the House. In countries with weaker Senates (Ireland and Germany for example) it's normally because they are indirectly elected in some way and don't have a direct relationship with the people. The US is like Italy in having genuinely equal chambers.

I would change the schedule for House elections because I don't think two years is long enough to do anything but prepare for your next campaign even moving it out to 3 years (which is the Australian election cycle) or aligning it with Presidential elections would probably give a bit of a respite in which actual legislating could happen - but you'd still have the slowly evolving block in the Senate.

[Syt]

I was keen to put forward the West German constitution because iirc it was mainly written by the Americans and the British. 

It was written by the Germans but had to be approved by the Western Allies. They did set out some base parameters, though, IIRC.

[Zanza]

I was keen to put forward the West German constitution because iirc it was mainly written by the Americans and the British. 

Not really. The Allied military government gave some general expectations (federal democracy, human rights, rule of law, no Soviet style communism) and due to denazification only liberal democrats were in any relevant positions in West Germany anyway.

But the actual process was hands off from the Allies. The council that wrote the constitution, which was deliberately not called a constitution as it was considered provisional until German unity, was mostly politicians and civil servants, most of them lawyers and economists by profession. Most of them persecuted by the Nazis, but a handful with influential positions in the Third Reich.

The constitution was finalised on May 8th, 1949 - not a coincidence obviously. The three military governors of the Western occupation zones then gave their consent.

[Zanza]

I was keen to put forward the West German constitution because iirc it was mainly written by the Americans and the British. 

The Germans had a figurehead head of state in the Weimar republic, whose constitution was written by neither the Americans nor the British.  I'd say that the reason the West German government had that structure was because that was the way Germans did their governments.

The Weimar constitution president was not a mere figurehead, but was directly elected with considerable own powers - also occasionally called an ersatz-Kaiser. The chancellor on the other hand was a weak position in the Weimar constitution. The post-war constitution instead took away most powers from the president and made the chancellor the supremely powerful position in the German constitutional order, but dependent on the elected parliament. 

[Zanza]

One simple thing I would change in the US constitution is to add a term duration and maximum age for supreme court and federal judges. Maximum age of 70 or 75 and a maximum term duration of 12-20 years, whichever comes earlier. That would not impede judicial independence at all, but make sure that you don't have octogenarians there or people sitting for decades. Maybe add that they need to be confirmed with 2/3 majority so that only moderates have a chance.

[Syt]

What are the current qualification requirements to become a judge in the US? I assume it differs from state to state (except for federal courts)?

[The Brain]

What are the current qualification requirements to become a judge in the US? I assume it differs from state to state (except for federal courts)?

Not as strict as they will be late in the century.

[grumbler]

What are the current qualification requirements to become a judge in the US? I assume it differs from state to state (except for federal courts)?

Nominated by the president/governor and ratified by the legislature in the federal system and in states that do it that way; successfully elected in states that elect judges.  You don't have to even have a law degree or ever have practiced law, though all USSC justices have been lawyers.

[crazy canuck]

I expected this thread to be well supplied with Euro/Canadian self-masturbatory superior-smugness, and I was not disappointed. 

We can't help but suggest improvements to a system that is so profoundly flawed.

Even if you just adopted the Canadian Federal election system for how elections are administered you would be much further ahead