Should we have to elect more federal officers?

Currently, we only elect two - the President and Vice President, and we don't really get a choice on the VP.

But most states elect a Governor, AND an attorney-general, a treasurer, etc.

The presidency has grown in power so much, wouldn't it be nice to have more voter control over certain offices? An independent Attorney-General would be nice. What other offices would be better elected than appointed?

Just musing...

until a president cannot serve anymore.

then it becomes the most important position ever.

isn't that strange?

the vice-presidency has grown in influence in the last couple decades. Al Gore was the most involved, active VP in history, and then Cheney has even surpassed Gore in his role.

The job doesn't HAVE to be a shitty one - it just traditionally has. At first, the VP was the "runner up" and usually a political opponent of the President. Then, when they started running as a team, the VP was usually chosen for purely political considerations.

It'll be interesting to see, going forward, whether VPs will remain powerful, or whether the role will recede to it's normal historical position.

the most involved, active vp in history? pfffttt...

how so?

and cheney's legacy is that he shot someone. that's it.



you think too highly of the vp position, bud...

I was alive and awake during the Clinton presidency, and remember much being said of Al Gore's role, and how he was reinventing the vice-presidency.

And if you think Cheney isn't playing an important role in this administration, I just don't know what to tell you.

"And if you think Cheney isn't playing an important role in this administration, I just don't know what to tell you."

wow.



heh again. ok. maybe cheney as a person has some influence on the president. but not in the role of the vice-president. the vice-president serves no fucking purpose, pretty much at all, in any administration. but for one fucking task. a tie breaker in the senate.

unless a president is unable to fulfill the obligations of his office. which has happened rarely...

that is his constitutional task.

do you ever read? have you ever actual read the constitution? do you get our government? do you understand politics and how it unfolds?

should i stop referring to you as a bud?


have you become a "pal?"

...we have to make the requirements very strict.

Otherwise you might get an Arnold Schwarzenegger as top cop.

Those responsible for making the laws should be elected.

Those responsible for enforcing them - judges, attourneys, police officials etc - should not be.

They should be answerable to the law, not to popular opinion and the media, and as such they should be appointed and removed by an independant commission. The same goes for those who define district boundaries for elections and the like.

C.f. Nifong, Mike.

and we elect governors and presidents.

Most states elect an attorney general. Lots of places elect judges. Many places elect sheriffs.

An A-G is either going to be elected, or appointed by the executive. I'm not sure appointment is necessarily a better way to do it.

As much as possible, people making decisions about which cases to spend resources in, who to prosecute, and perhaps most of all how heavily to sentence a given crime and who to parole, should be thinking as much as possible about the law, and as little as possible about reelection.

High-profile criminals should not receive more or less lenient sentences because the media wants it, but that's an inevitable consequence of electing judges and the like.

Governors and the like should have no ability to influence the workings of the legal system directly. C.f. Libby, Scooter.


Yes, lots of parts of the US do it. That doesn't mean it's not a bad thing.

are we better off having an A-G who serves at the pleasure of the President?

I can see your argument applying more to judges - they shouldn't have to deal with political concerns. But an A-G? I'm not so sure.

I'm not an expert on US politics, but it looks to me as though the A-G's role is basically to act as the president's lawyer, and so it makes sense for the president to be allowed to appoint them.

We have a form of government that rightly puts control of the executive branch under the executive we elect to run it.

Besides, it will never happen.

that's why I said in the OP I was just musing.

I was wondering why so many states do it differently, and why the problem you foresee doesn't seem to handicap those states.

how about electing justices of the Supreme Court?

Here in Illinois, we elect ALL statewide, county judges. Including the Illinois Supreme Court.

How about doing this, at least at the Supreme Court level, nationwide?

You would have, of course, to change the Constitution.

Again, just musing. Perhaps it's a colossally stupid idea. Flame away, etc.