I am a firm believer in sharing creative and risky ideas, not because they are the best, but because they ignite a shared interest in bettering something that is broken or needs improvement. I look forward to future articles like this Gabe! Our nation was founded on thinkers like yourself and ideas like this.
Well said! Ideas are fragile things and need to be carefully supported in order to incubate and have a chance to prove themselves...and as you point out, this incubation period leads to confirming shared interests and to additional strategies for improvement.
This is exactly the “out-of-the-box” thinking that is needed in a seemingly hopeless situation (like our 17% trust ratio in Congress). And yes, this (and your detailed reporting of otherwise overlooked issues) is exactly what I am willing to pay for.
It seems to me that what you are arguing for is to make the Justice Department that Fourth Branch. Then you would make the IGs that are currently within each department and agency employed by the Justice Department. We haven't needed that separation until Trump decided to turn the Justice Department into his own vengeance apparatus.
The root cause that prevents the Justice Department from acting in this way is the presumption that the AG works for and at the pleasure of the President. Not only was the court completely wrong in overturning Humphrey's Executor, which dealt with independent agencies, it is wrong in thinking that Congress doesn't have the legislative authority to dictate how the Executive is structured and functions.
I don't think that we need to amend the Constitution. We need to update the members of SCOTUS.
Very original idea, but as others have said, impossible to add to the Constitution, at least in my lifetime. A better fix would be an informed, educated, engaged electorate that would throw the bums out, regardless of party. Also unlikely to happen in my lifetime.
Unlike one other commentator, I very much appreciate your outside-the-box thinking balanced with your detailed reporting. Keep your creative juices flowing Gabe; they identify problems that we all need to think about.
Who guards the guards? An old question. And pertinent here. Adding a fourth branch of government only compounds the problem. Because then there would be four branches in need of guarding instead of three. This brings me to something I simply do not understand. If the three branches we now have are supposed to be a check and balance on each other how did this idea of a unitary executive come to dominate the Supreme Court? It directly flies in the face of checks and balances. And it has created a great big mess of our government.
What a breathtakingly undemocratic idea! There is no substitute for the individual personal integrity of office holders and an electorate with cohesive moral and ethical standards. These reprobates were voted into office.
How about moving back toward democracy with robust protections for media like Wikileaks and generous support for public media and real financial rewards for people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden instead of persecution and retribution?
It seems to me to be a great idea; and our current, well-founded distrust of politicians is turning into a consensus across the citizenry that is harmful to the national character. Major reforms can take decades to achieve, but it's not like we are currently swimming in excellent, competing ideas. I hope this one can take shape and become real. It's more doable than eliminating the electoral college, curtailing gerrymandering or packing the court, all of which are very partisan, and unlikely.
Our system has been created with the presumption that it will be conducted by honorable people. Unfortunately, it isn't. And the trending on that score is clearly downward. I salute you for bringing this idea into the light.
Yes, the idea of any sort of reform to our National system of governance seems far-fetched. How do you reform a defunct operation inhabited by policy extremists who arrived there as a result of devious torquing of the very system for electing them (e.g., gerrymandering on steroids). We just witnessed the disaster befalling one of our most treasured institutions, 60 Minutes. CBS has become a cesspool, along with vast components of our Federal government.
It takes real guts to contemplate some form of better in the midst of this rolling disaster.
It's almost remindful of the Civl War. Or the Great Depression. Or World War II.
What you have done, though, is you have planted a seed. Perhaps, given the desperation rampant among so many of us, it will find a way to grow into something that could happen. Is that preferable to giving up? This Nation's pattern in many fields has been to identify what couldn't be done, until finally, it was.
What would happen if a real dialogue around this concept began in earnest? What is likely to be the path if that doesn't happen?
I like the spirit in which this is offered, but like other "watchdog agencies" (e.g., the so-called Consumer Finance Protection Board), it would be almost certainly immediately politicized and would lose its effectiveness thereby. Also, the LAST thing we need is another branch of government to be corrupted. You said we'd have to be careful that it wouldn't become another group unelected bureaucrats. That's exactly what it would be from the beginning.
Frankly, I don't understand the accolade for standing doctrine. Like, no? If a law is violated, you do not need to prove personal harm from it, the law on the books is still violated, that _should_ be enough. (Do not walk suspiciously while holding a salmon!)
I am afraid that a fully functioning “accountability branch” would, at best, merely push the problem back a step. Install an accountability agency, and watch it immediately tumble to the same partisan pressure under which the existing structures groan already. Whichever parties control the executive, legislative, and judicial branches would try to commandeer the accountability agency, too, so as to make accountability as dead as ever. This is what accountability actually means to operatives who are accustomed to power without restraint. That the agency would derive its constitutional authority from a popular mandate would not secure it against partisan abuse any more than it secures the White House, the Congress, and the courts.
I would start by reinforcing the existing political structure and making it easier for each branch to enforce binding orders on the others. Yes, legislative and judicial bodies need limited quasi-executive powers to deploy against other government agencies. One of the most visible reasons why our establishments don’t respond to abuse or incompetence is because there is no outside entity with the power to make them respond.
Ultimately, however, the only enduring solution will be to take the partisan motivation away and ensure that no single faction can aspire to total control of every branch of government. To this end, I continue to hope for a thoroughgoing reform of representation that moves away from single-member plurality. It is because of this, I believe, that extremists are over-represented and local minorities under-represented within party and government establishments, all of which leads them to undercut public accountability so that they can keep advancing positions contrary to the public interest and public sentiment without consequence.
Interesting idea. I am curious how you imagine the fourth branch’s efforts might be funded?
I could see it having an initial impact, but eventually being starved of the resources needed to do its job. The resources needed to run costly investigation would need to be approved and allocated by the very people it threatens…
I think implementing
(1) one of the ideas you explored a while back for de-politicizing voting maps; and
I am a firm believer in sharing creative and risky ideas, not because they are the best, but because they ignite a shared interest in bettering something that is broken or needs improvement. I look forward to future articles like this Gabe! Our nation was founded on thinkers like yourself and ideas like this.
Well said! Ideas are fragile things and need to be carefully supported in order to incubate and have a chance to prove themselves...and as you point out, this incubation period leads to confirming shared interests and to additional strategies for improvement.
Excellent, Gabe!
This is exactly the “out-of-the-box” thinking that is needed in a seemingly hopeless situation (like our 17% trust ratio in Congress). And yes, this (and your detailed reporting of otherwise overlooked issues) is exactly what I am willing to pay for.
It seems to me that what you are arguing for is to make the Justice Department that Fourth Branch. Then you would make the IGs that are currently within each department and agency employed by the Justice Department. We haven't needed that separation until Trump decided to turn the Justice Department into his own vengeance apparatus.
The root cause that prevents the Justice Department from acting in this way is the presumption that the AG works for and at the pleasure of the President. Not only was the court completely wrong in overturning Humphrey's Executor, which dealt with independent agencies, it is wrong in thinking that Congress doesn't have the legislative authority to dictate how the Executive is structured and functions.
I don't think that we need to amend the Constitution. We need to update the members of SCOTUS.
Very original idea, but as others have said, impossible to add to the Constitution, at least in my lifetime. A better fix would be an informed, educated, engaged electorate that would throw the bums out, regardless of party. Also unlikely to happen in my lifetime.
Unlike one other commentator, I very much appreciate your outside-the-box thinking balanced with your detailed reporting. Keep your creative juices flowing Gabe; they identify problems that we all need to think about.
Who guards the guards? An old question. And pertinent here. Adding a fourth branch of government only compounds the problem. Because then there would be four branches in need of guarding instead of three. This brings me to something I simply do not understand. If the three branches we now have are supposed to be a check and balance on each other how did this idea of a unitary executive come to dominate the Supreme Court? It directly flies in the face of checks and balances. And it has created a great big mess of our government.
What a breathtakingly undemocratic idea! There is no substitute for the individual personal integrity of office holders and an electorate with cohesive moral and ethical standards. These reprobates were voted into office.
How about moving back toward democracy with robust protections for media like Wikileaks and generous support for public media and real financial rewards for people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden instead of persecution and retribution?
It seems to me to be a great idea; and our current, well-founded distrust of politicians is turning into a consensus across the citizenry that is harmful to the national character. Major reforms can take decades to achieve, but it's not like we are currently swimming in excellent, competing ideas. I hope this one can take shape and become real. It's more doable than eliminating the electoral college, curtailing gerrymandering or packing the court, all of which are very partisan, and unlikely.
Our system has been created with the presumption that it will be conducted by honorable people. Unfortunately, it isn't. And the trending on that score is clearly downward. I salute you for bringing this idea into the light.
Yes, the idea of any sort of reform to our National system of governance seems far-fetched. How do you reform a defunct operation inhabited by policy extremists who arrived there as a result of devious torquing of the very system for electing them (e.g., gerrymandering on steroids). We just witnessed the disaster befalling one of our most treasured institutions, 60 Minutes. CBS has become a cesspool, along with vast components of our Federal government.
It takes real guts to contemplate some form of better in the midst of this rolling disaster.
It's almost remindful of the Civl War. Or the Great Depression. Or World War II.
What you have done, though, is you have planted a seed. Perhaps, given the desperation rampant among so many of us, it will find a way to grow into something that could happen. Is that preferable to giving up? This Nation's pattern in many fields has been to identify what couldn't be done, until finally, it was.
What would happen if a real dialogue around this concept began in earnest? What is likely to be the path if that doesn't happen?
Just sayin'.
I like the spirit in which this is offered, but like other "watchdog agencies" (e.g., the so-called Consumer Finance Protection Board), it would be almost certainly immediately politicized and would lose its effectiveness thereby. Also, the LAST thing we need is another branch of government to be corrupted. You said we'd have to be careful that it wouldn't become another group unelected bureaucrats. That's exactly what it would be from the beginning.
Frankly, I don't understand the accolade for standing doctrine. Like, no? If a law is violated, you do not need to prove personal harm from it, the law on the books is still violated, that _should_ be enough. (Do not walk suspiciously while holding a salmon!)
Brilliant!!!! And to get Congress out of the social media business!!!! We must have oversight into the Supreme Court and judiciary!!
I think such an idea would begin first at the State level and perhaps move up. That’s what happened with many of FDR’s ideas.
One name that would have been part of this Fourth Branch: Ken Starr. Concerning.
I am afraid that a fully functioning “accountability branch” would, at best, merely push the problem back a step. Install an accountability agency, and watch it immediately tumble to the same partisan pressure under which the existing structures groan already. Whichever parties control the executive, legislative, and judicial branches would try to commandeer the accountability agency, too, so as to make accountability as dead as ever. This is what accountability actually means to operatives who are accustomed to power without restraint. That the agency would derive its constitutional authority from a popular mandate would not secure it against partisan abuse any more than it secures the White House, the Congress, and the courts.
I would start by reinforcing the existing political structure and making it easier for each branch to enforce binding orders on the others. Yes, legislative and judicial bodies need limited quasi-executive powers to deploy against other government agencies. One of the most visible reasons why our establishments don’t respond to abuse or incompetence is because there is no outside entity with the power to make them respond.
Ultimately, however, the only enduring solution will be to take the partisan motivation away and ensure that no single faction can aspire to total control of every branch of government. To this end, I continue to hope for a thoroughgoing reform of representation that moves away from single-member plurality. It is because of this, I believe, that extremists are over-represented and local minorities under-represented within party and government establishments, all of which leads them to undercut public accountability so that they can keep advancing positions contrary to the public interest and public sentiment without consequence.
Interesting idea. I am curious how you imagine the fourth branch’s efforts might be funded?
I could see it having an initial impact, but eventually being starved of the resources needed to do its job. The resources needed to run costly investigation would need to be approved and allocated by the very people it threatens…
I think implementing
(1) one of the ideas you explored a while back for de-politicizing voting maps; and
(2) ranked choice voting throughout all elections
would improve accountability faster.