A short break from Articles

Article 3 (legislative branch) is next, and it’s rather….dry, mostly.

Unfortunately, some of the dry stuff is what’s causing some of the abuses, so I’m having to read it and amendments to see what Congress’ current powers are.

Try reading it yourself, and then thank me for doing it so you don’t have to.

Actually, I wanted to ask about something for the executive branch, to try to get some ideas from the vast reading audience:

In the Executive branch, we currently have military, police, and intelligence agencies. Do we need all kinds of them? What are their proper roles and functions in society? How does the role change domestically vs abroad?

Guys, I really need help with this one, so I am hoping for a robust discussion in the comments.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to A short break from Articles

  1. Xpat says:

    “In the Executive branch, we currently have military, police, and intelligence agencies. Do we need all kinds of them? What are their proper roles and functions in society? How does the role change domestically vs abroad?”

    We need some kinds of them, but I suppose how many and what kinds is not itself a constitutional question. Like, some kind of “air force” was obviously not specified in the constitution but just as obviously had to develop as such. Conceivably, a “space” branch of the military might also emerge in the same manner–Chinese are already there. So anyway, the branches of the military roughly make sense–I’m not sure what would be gained or lost by collapsing them and would need to hear from some military people, or at least those knowledgeable about it.

    As for police/intelligence I can see the justification for an intelligence agency and an investigative agency (whatever one might say about the present ones), and also the secret service, but the other para-police agencies that have developed, like that connected with our beloved ATF–I can see some vigorous pruning as being beneficial up to including elimination of same. But, again, that’s not a constitutional matter in itself, is it? (More below.)

    An intelligence agency and military will naturally focus abroad, though not exclusively, and the FBI (or theoretical equivalent) primarily domestically. I guess that’s stating the obvious.

    I was remembering in two Frank Herbert novels (The Whipping Star and ?The Dosadi Experiment), where there is a guy connected with a “sabotage” agency of government. Its primary purpose is to mess up, sabotage, eliminate bloated government bureaucracies. There’s no mechanism in the constitution for doing this, so it has to be an ongoing policy struggle, right? Unless there’s an amendment saying something to the effect that all government agencies/organizations not enumerated in the constitution must be subject to review to see if they can justify their continued existence–a bureaucratic dismantling mechanism, that also could be a check on creeping intrusions. But this is getting past the specific issues of the executive branch.

    As an additional note, I only vaguely know what I’m talking about here . . .

  2. Xpat says:

    Don’t everyone jump in and robustly discuss at once!

    • wormme says:

      Sorry. Well, the military ain’t broke, I see no problem with one military divided into various branches. The intelligence community should be the same way, rather than “competitors” with abrasive overlap. And one “police” organization is sufficient, to deal with federal crimes and mediate/support interstate crime.

      Don’t forget I believe most “federal” crimes are no such thing. The Fed has zero authority to outlaw rec chemicals like booze, pot, coke, meth, heroin, and Liquid Drano. But if two or more states have banned such things and have interstate trafficking in them, some federal involvement is warranted.

      • thepi says:

        Th military may not be broken, but it certainly has issues with bureaucracy, procurement, and political correctness.

        Constitutionally speaking, a funding firewall preventing congress from funding/de-funding specific military programs may help, but I’m not sure it wouldn’t cause more problems than it would solve (keeping pet projects around, canceling objectively better equipment), or merely move that issue from congress to the military bureaucracy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s