Dugu: "USA constitution" is "noisy" (two)

Politics is a game -- all kinds of interests

Three, how to prevent congress.

Similarly, the federal also needs a strong government, the legislature, but delegates had doubts about the establishment of the department,Afraid it out "evil law", the "tyranny".WilsonSay, despotism came to earth, there are different forms: sometimes manifested as administrative autocracy, sometimes expressed as a military dictatorship, sometimes manifested as parliamentary monarchy. Theory and practice have proved that, if the legislation does not limit, the citizens' rights to freedom will be lost, countries will not be long period of stability; and to enforce restrictions on Parliament, by members of the morality and conscience is not enough. The only way is from the internal pull it apart, divided into Each one has his good points. and independent institutions. This and prevent administrative department is just the opposite. In order to control the legislative branch, you'll have to put the legislature decomposition; in order to control the administrative department, you put it together. Because a person than three individuals responsible for much, three people will participate in each other, until one person dominate the other two.

RandolphAlso, the state parliament democracy presumptuous, proved necessary to set up a firmly in the senate. The second chamber (Senate), the first college is to control the democratic.MadisonAlso, the people of a country, in a solid hour, they hope to get, first of all is their guarantee happiness, they first thought, who are authorized to seek public happiness, may betray the people for their trust, to prevent a significant prudential measures this danger is to separate their trust, respectively to the different composition of the different agencies entrusted, make them mutual supervision, mutual restriction. This is the government which must be the separation of the three powers, parliament must be a bicameral truth. As for the establishment of the objective, there are two: one is to protect people against government oppression; the two is to protect people against the fleeting thought temptation. This kind of thinking is sometimes difficult to resist the temptation, the. Because the people as well as the number of the house of Representatives, easy because of frivolous and impulsive and mistakes. This need to put up a fence, which is part of the selection of the citizens of a limited number of enlightenment, and stand firm, always can up to protest, Congressman against aggressive manic, protection may be most oppressed minority. We need such a minority to play justice, make the balance to maintain a balance, which is set to the hospital. However, the Senate may make mistakes, more terrible than the general population, because they always think the truth is in your hands. At the same time, the elite will form cliques, power, and because of their high IQ, culture, to engage in corruption means conspiracy more cunning, wrist more clever, so keep to the Senate, but also must guard against. Prevention approach is to implement the rotation system. So, by the conferenceRandolph,Williamsen,GE'sOpinion.The federal Senate re-election every two years, will1/3Senator.

Four, a senator, the president and judges of the salary issue.

All of the services for all members, the president and judges whether to pay, by whom, and made a fierce discussion.FranklinDo not advocate pay. He said the most attractive world there are two things: the power and money. A position if decent, glory, and power, and profitable, it is enough to let the heaven and earth are like a flock of ducks. This will be more reckless, go all lengths, for the pursuit of self-interest and never yield in spite of reverses. Franklin said, gentlemen, save money, is not my purpose, check erroneous ideas at the outset, that is my concern.

FranklinThe proposal did not debate. Because we all know that in mind, it is the barrier. What calls for the president and lawmakers compulsory labor? LikeMadisonAs the degree of the constitutional convention in borrowing for how many people? Besides, this scheme also has problems: one is that only the rich can politics, civilians will be missed and politics; two is the political will become a leisure activity, can not guarantee the quality of work, unable to attract talent. After the foundation of the federal government, almost everyone believes that to solve the financial problems, nonHamilton". ButHamiltonWhen the6Years finance minister, Minister of the salary is too low too, resigned to become a lawyer,

Low salaries have not, and no salary? It seems the salary must have, the question is who to send.Al VossAdvocated by the state, because the state standard of living is different, can not be unified standards.WilliamsenAgree.GE's,Randolph,Rufus Kim,Wilson,Madison,HamiltonOpposition, because this will cause the federal members of the state governments of attachment.HamiltonSaid, people always pay the boss, took someone else's money into man. Federal lawmakers is not the state government man, they pay, certainly not to the state council. Maryland representativeChangle'sSaid, if the Federal Parliament, paid by the state, and they can be served as the state government office. Well, the State Council will say to them: listen! Not obedient, call you hungry. Listen, you pay. Finally, through parliament:Members receive compensation for services, from the legislation, the treasury payment. The president also. As for the judges, is a lifetime, and the term salary not only increase.

This is a great reform. Since then, politics is no longer a people business interests, but a kind of occupation, the president, Congress and the judge is not turned out to play "amateur", but the country's employees, they took the national salary, you must serve the people, otherwise it is be forgetful of one's duties. So, pay it can prevent corruption.

Five, a congressman in part-time government departments.

The meeting of members of Congress can also serve in the government departments, and made a fierce debate. Most people do not agree with part-time.ButlerSay, for preventing tricks for office people, this caution (no part-time) is necessary. Many people in parliament, is to give themselves and their friends and family to seek job, it will make the government play from the root rot.Larter RichAlso say, Senator part-time is corruption, must shut the door!

Against the rulesRufus KimSay, this limitation would make a good man be full of worries, will also give the executive who provide an excuse but dear. Because good people are when the congressman, Senator and cannot when officials, administrators can from the rest of the mediocrity which pick up.WilsonAlso, this is not conducive to encouraging the talent, the war will cause fatal consequences, for exampleWashingtonBecause it is not what happens when a congressman, commander?HamiltonAlso, by patriotism is not enough, to attract talents must have the interest. Relying solely on patriotism, is our source of many mistakes of the past.

MadisonSay, this question should be sides, Senator part-time, indeed lead to corruption. Especially in the parliament, the bad atmosphere will form the spoils, but the problem is still another condition, is the excellent service in parliament, incompetent people but when the administrative department official, apparently, for congressman absolutely no part-time is not reality, this will enable citizens don't want to be a member of the.PinckneySay, hold no other office, is derogatory to members of the. Since the Congress, they have prestige among the people, why can no longer serve as officials? And politics was not economical. Because of this, the parliament will no longer be a magnet to attract first-rate talent, in his view, at least the Senate should become a ministers school, a statesman of the hospital.

MasonTaunt said, simply delete not part-time terms, in order to openly encourage corruption. Then please those generous donations to parliament to people, they will be fair, justice, to cut off all position as like cake, each other. According to the present United man ways, can be assumed lost people very little, as long as give selfish people some benefits, it can make those who have lofty ideals and high aspirations were all fallen.GerrySay, he does not think not part-time is derogatory to lawmakers, prestige is not what good stuff, it is the road to tyranny; Minister and statesman also didn't what great, he did not want to do home for them. If there is no official prospects, people won't do as members, if we'd better citizens, should all be reckless with greed, we should elect a dictator immediately. Because to satisfy one's greed, than to meet a lot of people easier.RandolphHe said, the past opposition, will continue to oppose Senator part-time, because not corrupting open the floodgates wide to to establish authority and. The only worth considering is the representative shall not concurrently, in wartime affect the most competent commander.

Finally, the formation of a compromise with and room for manoeuvre scheme,The federal members may not serve as a term set or raise the federal civil service; federal officials as MPs in term of not.That is to say, Senator is not absolutely no officer. (1) the state (state) government can (when2Set a term or not) before the officer can (when3Only not when), is a term set or a federal civil service. This is to prevent the members to the officer the legislation set up many positions, or give an official salary, then to be. In a word, is to prevent their power. Official members can not part-time, officials as members, must choose to resign; members when the officials, seats must be vacated. It should be said, this is reasonable, asWilsonSay, get nor what shame the lofty ideals and high aspirations, not to blame, but must nip in the bud on corruption.

Six, about the limitation of the legislation.

Although the Convention on the Council (parliament) of segmentation, the members were limited, but still not trust, afraid of the parliament of abuse of power, to develop and application of tyranny by "evil law" to "".MadisonSay, parliament has a strong trend, to put all the power, immediately to include its vortex, this is the real source of danger.MasonAlso, parliamentary legislation not legal justice and even harmful is constant some thing, not the legislative restrictions. It must be able to veto legislation from congress.

But, who will exercise this power, disagree: one is by the president to veto alone.FranklinOpposition, he said, in the colonial era, the veto by the governor frequently used to rake in the money. If not privately and governor ogle, again good also pass legislation. Results in the formation of practice, Parliament ordered the first full storehouse, the governor got good re signed a decree.MasonAlso, the veto will be used for a supply of sth. the executive and parliament. But the meeting passed a resolution:Administrative officer has the right to veto legislation, but Congress can respectively2/3Most to veto.

WilsonAndMadisonThe Justice Department to participate in the legislative review, the reason is the only executive review together, the power of Parliament will overwhelm them, besides the United review will be beneficial for the three. Administrative and judicial departments to defend himself, the legislative branch got help.MauriceAlso, a term very short (at the time of6Years, later changed to4Years), during the reign of also can be impeached executive, not enough to constitute the effective control of Parliament, even with the power of the judges are not.

However,WilsonAndMadisonMany people were against the agreement.GE'sSaid, he could not see to the judge to do what benefits. The number of judges more than executive, voting, no administrative officer of a little advantage, will "". The result is not the executive to defend themselves, but the judge has the ability to sacrifice the administrative officer.GerrySay, this is the interpretation of law into the law makers, the judge into a statesman. He says never let the judges and magistrates were unfair alliance between them, with work hand in glove with alliance to jointly deal with the Congress and the government.Larter RichSaid, the review meeting candidates the most should not consider is the judge. The legislative and judicial justice must be separated, only have the right to speak in the judicial to.Ruud MartinAlso think, this is a dangerous innovation. The judge have veto power over the law (that is, in the hearing of cases sentenced a law unconstitutional), if they participate in the legislative review, the judge will have a double veto. Besides, the judge in the legislative review, completely may veto legislation supported by its people. This will make the judge lost the trust of the people, are not. SoThe meeting hold by the Executive (president) enjoys a legislative veto resolutions.

Such,The legislative, administrative, judicial and formed a stable relationship between the separation and balance. The legislative power while returning will enjoy, but subject to supervise and restrict the administrative and judicial departments. If the president believes that legislation is wrong, can veto, the Supreme Court although can not participate in the "legislative review", but can be "judicial referendum", that is to decide a case through legislation is legal, is actually a legislative review. So, even if the house and Senate respectively2/3Many times to override the veto, forced through a bad law, the Supreme Court also sentenced them "unconstitutional". Thus, in front of evil law may be harm to people, then set up the three firewall -- two separate legislation of a president, a legislative review, judicial referendum and a.

Such,The relations of the three legislative, administrative, judicial form a chain buckle. Congress is the legislative power, but no executive power, no power of interpretation, bill later how execution, how to explain, it is incapable of action. The president has the power of law enforcement, but have no legislative power, no power of interpretation. He can't think legislation is legislation, to establish what law he made what method, can not be arbitrary arbitrary interpretation of law and distort. The judge has the power of interpretation, but have no legislative power, executive power is not. He can not participate in the legislation and law enforcement, not backseat driver on the legislation and law enforcement, only the "Inaction", if no action, he what also do not. Even if someone complain, he is not unconstitutional.

Between the president and lawmakers, judges, also formed a chain buckle relationship, the president can veto legislation, the judge can be found unconstitutional, but Congress to impeach the president, the appointment of judges to the Senate, so members are not afraid of them, and because the judges must be approved by the Senate, so, although this appointment is nominated by the president, the judge did not owe the president. The president has to be impeached may initiate impeachment, but only the house of Representatives, the trial of the case is only the Senate, presided over the impeachment trial is the chief justice of the Supreme court. To initiate impeachment not trial, trial could not conduct, but without the members present2/3Consent shall not be convicted (not as so many people are deliberately and the president did not go). As for the people's elected members and a tenured judges also is not afraid of the president. Besides the presidential term of only four years, he appointed a justice of Supreme Court does not say the term can.

  So, between Parliament and the parliament, MPs and senators, and officials, officials and judges have built the "firewall", this design is mainly completed in the constitutional convention, part is formed in the later practice. The general spirit isDefense officials such as thieves, anti right such as fire, to prevent the abuse of power such as flood control. To plan a bit complicated, things a little trouble, the efficiency low, never let the powerful people, and work hand in glove with a hang, do evil all kinds of evils.