Just throwing this out there: What if we had a higher governmental power to provide the ultimate

[LaMouffette]

checks and balances on the three branches of government?

It would be a coalition of all former living presidents and all former living defense secretaries and all former living secretaries of state and select former military officers. The members of the coalition would have the ability to reject future members, such as Trump, based on misbehavior while in office.

This coalition would only convene at moments of extreme upheaval, like the one we are experiencing now, and they would, hopefully, provide a final, break-the-glass, emergency safety mechanism to remove a rogue president (Trump), remove an all-powerful Senate majority leader (McConnell), and restore balance to a lopsided Supreme Court.

This occurred to me after thinking about the warning letter that ten former defense secretaries published in the Washington Post on January 3.

We have all these former government and military officials still around, from former generals to former presidents, with hundreds of years of combined experience, and with the wisdom of hindsight and the protection of not having to run for office or be accountable to wealthy donors. If they could be convened in moments of crisis to make the final say on a president's or other elected official's ability to remain in office, I think we would have a better way of dealing with future Trumps and future McConnells.

Never gonna happen? Probably not. The Republicans already know that the only way they can win is by cheating. They would be very vocal in their opposition to any further obstruction to their efforts to lie, cheat, and steal to win elections.

But just sayin'.

[Blues Heron]

1. Can you imagine shrub or cheenee on there - they gave us death and torture

they are defective humans that made it to the very top.

[LaMouffette]

13. Yes, I can see them on it. They would hopefully be outnumbered by the saner and more

compassionate members of the coalition. Their presence as Republicans would be needed to give the coalition bipartisanship.

[Blues Heron]

17. they belong in the Hague and you want to elevate them?

can you imagine Trump on this commission?

[1plus1equals1]

2. Nope

Don't need it if those in office will have the fortitude to honor their oath of office; our elected officials are the custodians of our Constitution and now is the time to step up and protect it, by force if necessary.

[LaMouffette]

14. Yeah, I wish we didn't need such a group, but look at the craven and self-serving Republicans

who are unwilling to stand up to Trump or to make an effort to deprogram his base and show Trump's voters what a corrupt and amoral monster he is. It's "Oath of office, schmoath of office," as far as they're concerned.

I think only a group immune to the pressure of being reelected could really act in the nation's interest and not their own.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

3. Lol nope.

[Glorfindel]

4. It could work - consider the Eminent Persons Group

of the Commonwealth of Nations

https://www.commonwealthofnations.org/commonwealth/eminent-persons-group/

But I think it would have to be strictly advisory.

[LaMouffette]

15. Yes! Exactly! And it only figures that someone thought of something like this before me!

From that link in your post:

The Eminent Persons Group (EPG) is a body made up of highly regarded individuals who act as an esteemed advisory body to, and on behalf of, the Commonwealth that was re-established in 2009. The EPG’s aim is to ‘undertake an examination of options for reform in order to bring the Commonwealth’s many institutions into a stronger and more effective framework of co-operation and partnership’.

But do you think it would work if it were just advisory? I fear that if it didn't have teeth, it would not help to remove truly dangerous thugs like Trump and obstructionists like McConnell.

[PirateRo]

5. I brought this up in ab earlier post

Not a higher branch, though, a coequal fourth branch that ensured the congress were doing their job, a coequal inspector general branch to give teeth to the office of ethics. A requirement here is no political affiliation, no party representation.

[LaMouffette]

16. I like that idea, too. Kind of like the Internal Affairs department in policing.

[PirateRo]

21. Exactly

There are entirely too many corrupt public servants or wirthless political appointees. Sunshine is the best cure along with strong prison terms and destructive finial fines.

[Zoonart]

6. Sounds like you are proposing a "Star Chamber"

That has been the" deep state" boogyman in popular fiction for more than half a century. Bad look for Democracy.

[LaMouffette]

26. I had never heard of the Star Chamber before. Thank you!

Star Chamber, in full the Court of Star Chamber, in English law, the court made up of judges and privy councillors that grew out of the medieval king’s council as a supplement to the regular justice of the common-law courts. It achieved great popularity under Henry VIII for its ability to enforce the law when other courts were unable to do so because of corruption and influence, and to provide remedies when others were inadequate. When, however, it was used by Charles I to enforce unpopular political and ecclesiastical policies, it became a symbol of oppression to the parliamentary and Puritan opponents of Charles and Archbishop William Laud. It was, therefore, abolished by the Long Parliament in 1641.

A difference would be that the members of the "higher-power coalition" (needs a better name!), would all be former elected officials or people appointed to office by elected officials, Democrats and Republicans. From their time in office, everyone in the coalition would be well known to the American people, giving more weight to their decisions. It would by its very nature be bipartisan. And hopefully, once they would no longer have to pledge allegiance to party in hopes of being reelected, they would be free to truly act in the nation's best interest.

However, I could see that not being the case and certain members still acting in the interest of party, either for pure party loyalty or for kickbacks.

Seems like nothing is truly incorruptible.

[Silent3]

7. What I think we at least need is a replacement for the 25th amendment

This, again, is almost impossible to do because amending the Constitution is so difficult, but I'd change or broaden the authority for declaring the President unfit so that, unlike a President's own VP and cabinet, there's a better chance for impartiality in the decision making.

Perhaps vest this power in the SCOTUS (but make it clear that the power is meant for quick decision making, not something to be conducted like a lengthy trial)? Keep the choice up to the cabinet, but allow the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader, as well as the VP, to each have the power to call for a vote of the cabinet members?

I don't know the precise formulation, but I think we need something better than the 25th.

[StarfishSaver]

9. Doesn't need to be replaced

It provides just what we need. It allows Congress to create an independent body to help the vice president determine when to invoke the 25th Amendment so it doesn't rely on a majority of persons who feel beholden to or are afraid of the president. That was never necessary before. Now that it's clear that it is, Congress is working on creating such a commission.

[LaMouffette]

19. I agree. It might be easier to improve the 25th Amendment.

But the important thing would be to make sure that it was absolutely bipartisan so that the majority party would not simply be able to veto a removal of the president just to protect their party's power.

I guess they would still maintain power through the VP, though.

[StarfishSaver]

8. No

[Dream Girl]

10. This would not be contusion all so would require ratification to do this

Interning idea though.

[mackdaddy]

11. The system works unless there is Collusion.

I remember when I was taking an accounting course decades ago and the instructor was talking about the checks and balances in an accounting system and how it can highlite and prevent embezzlement when you need two signatures on purchases, checks ect.

The only thing this cannot stop is collusion between the people involved.

The current three branches work except when there is collusion. In this case we have the massive collusion between Trump and all of his enablers in the Republican party.

It looks like collusion between at least some in the Capitol police, and the Trumpers who either directly helped the invaders, or refused and delayed getting the National Guard there as backup.

Collusion and Corruption just have to be constantly watched for and stamped out. The system can work.

[LaMouffette]

20. That's exactly right, which is why I think the "higher-power coalition" would have to consist

of former presidents, former defense secretaries, former secretaries of state, and former military of BOTH parties.

All of the people in the coalition would be well known to the American people because of their former service. If both former Republican officials and Democratic officials agreed that a president should be removed, it would be more convincing that it had to be done.

[Demsrule86]

12. No just no.

[sarisataka]

18. If such existed, do you realize

Trump would be a member of this group.

Put me in the Hell No column.

[LaMouffette]

23. Actually, no, he would not be a member. In my best-of-all-worlds scenario, the current members

of the "higher-power coalition" would be the ones accepting or denying the membership of future ex-presidents, ex-secretaries of state, and so on, to be part of the coalition.

If the current members are both Democrats and Republicans AND they no longer feel the pressure of having to get reelected themselves, they would hopefully feel free to act in the nation's best interest, not their own and not their former party's.

But, and I just thought of this, who would be the one to decide when a decision to remove a president should be "kicked upstairs" to the higher-power coalition?

So, yeah, this idea would need to be examined from all sides, up, down, sideways, backwards, to discover any unintended consequences or loopholes that could be exploited.

[KentuckyWoman]

22. The higher power is the voter.

This is messy as all hell but it worked. Don't fix what ain't broke.

[LaMouffette]

24. True. It worked this time. But just think if Trump's appointed judges had ruled his way

in all of Trump's lawsuits seeking to overthrow the election results.

I think we needed to construct more guardrails—fast—before the next Trump comes along.

[KentuckyWoman]

25. Voters are able to do that.

Where State Supreme courts are appointed, the voters can switch the Governor out.
Where they are elected, they can be voted out.

The Federal offices get the attention, but the work is at the local and state level. Stacey Abrams certainly understood that ... thankfully.

[LaMouffette]

27. Yes, thank God almighty for Stacy Abrams!