Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

phil

User Profile Image phil
Member since : Jun-03-2009 (Verified)
1 Ideas, 7 Comments, 20 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

There should be an established framework for politicians to make *binding* pre-election promises. Perhaps some sort of federal filing form, similar to "registering" to be on a ballot. Along with their registration, they should be required to file a document of what things they truely promise to stick to, if elected.

Then, if they are elected, and violate those promises.... They should be directly, and instantly, impeachable, soley on the grounds of that document. Due to "breech of contract", if you will. Reguardless of whether the office is sheriff, mayor, governor, or president of the United States of America.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 4205 Ideas
12345678910….168169Next »

Comments Posted

phil 9 months ago
Nice concept. but there's no way to enforce it. There is no possible way to verify whether or not a member of congress has read a bill.
So you should withdraw this suggestion.

Contrariwise, you might suggest that no bill be longer than [X] number of pages, so that mere mortals can actually read it.
if it requires a lawyer to understand it... then the law has failed to be cleanly and morally useful.

Or to put it another way: if there is not a CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD NEED for something... clearly understood to be described in less than [X] pages... then there should not be a law about it.
phil 9 months ago
It's a definate concern,that lawyers are running congress.
(and apparently, the democratic party. since both of its recent candidates were laywers? !!)

Unfortunately, I dont think this is a forum that's going to be effective to change that.
phil 9 months ago
The bill doesnt go far enough.
Modifying the current family immigration rules for this is fine. However, it does not undo the nasty "immigration tourism" tactic, of;

"Come to the US, legally OR illegally; pop out a baby on US soil... then demand US citizenship because of your child".

The bill should remove that loophole, when it is adding new ways for people to get residency.
phil 9 months ago
Why would anyone vote no on this?
Apparently, some people are, but I cant imagine why. ???
Some people LIKE their policitians lying at election time?
Some people LIKE policitians being unaccountable?
I dont get it.
phil 9 months ago
Why? i might guess because there are 20 or more "different" posts all about the same thing.
If people would just pick ONE to be behind, it would show up a lot better.
Why do we need 20,30,40 all about the same thing? it's silly.
phil 9 months ago
If you dont believe the government should be in the business of marriage, then you should be lobbying to eliminate ALL recognition, of ANY kind of "marriage".
You should want to abolish civil unions as well.
What business does the government have in "recognizing" two people's affections for each other?

(hint: Marriage isnt just about "recognizing two people who love each other". That's not why marriage exists. The public view has been twisted to portray it as that, through movies and activism. But that's not the purpose of legal marriage)
phil 9 months ago
Key reasons why "personhood" status should be revoked from corporations:

- Because corporations can be created, and un-created, at will. people cant. (not LEGALLY, anyway. it's called "murder")

- Because you cant put "a corporation" in jail

- Because you cant grant the unalienable rights of "life, liberty, and property", to something that does not have life in the first place.