Mac, you are spot on. I won’t address media toxicity (though I agree with you) but here are a few ideas.
- Misuse or Abuse of Office
Government officials are given (by law, apparently because it’s not in the constitution) something akin to sovereign immunity to protect them from lawsuits while in office. Lawfare is real and a powerful tool against those who seek or are in power. Look at how it was used against Trump. Most people don’t have the assets needed to withstand such onslaughts. The problem is that the immunity is far too broad and there are few apparent means to limit it. It’s possible to define 3 levels of abuse or misuse of office; however.
Definitions I propose are a hierarchy starting with nonfeasance, then misfeasance and ultimatelyl malfeasance meaning, respectively, not performing duties of an office (nonfeasance), performing duties of office very poorly but without provable illegal intent (misfeasance), and performing duties of an office to achieve illegal ends (malfeasance). Further, each type includes the lesser types such that malfeasance includes misfeasance and nonfeasance and misfeasance includes non-feasance. These precepts should be codified - preferably within the constitution - and applied to all who perform any duties of government whether paid or unpaid. This should apply to all elected officials, appointed officials and judges, and to all who are employed directly or indirectly in performing functions authorized or directed by government.
Having the precepts codified is worthless without a means to invoke them. At present, the only way to bring any challenges against any individuals identified above is through the legal system or acts congress or state governing bodies. This is insufficient because those institutions have created and perpetuate protections (that might be used against them) making the bar too high. There should be a means, included when the precepts are codified, for public petition to invoke charges. The threshold should be sufficiently high to prevent its use as a political tool and sufficiently low to make it feasible (maybe something like 10-15% (see note 1, below) of the number who voted in the most recent election (not limited to those who voted but limited to those qualified and registered to vote in the last election). Upon presentation of the requisite minimum number of petitioners’ signatures, persons accused should be suspended from their duties until investigations, hearings and decisions on each case are completed. This would have the effect of stopping any use of powers of office from affecting the outcome AND preventing an accused from continuing to engage in questionable activities. Some thought must be given to venues for hearings. Venues must be chosen to assure that hearings are outside the purview of the accused. For example, accused congressmen might be heard by the courts; accused jurists might be heard by congress; and accused administrative personnel (from president to the least bureaucrats) might be heard by a combination of jurists and congressmen drawn by lot.
Had such provisions been in place during the last administration, border security could have been restored within a few months instead of not being restored until after the election and people like Mayorkas, Biden, Garland might have been suspended from office in the meantime.
- Term Limits
Term limits should also address the length of terms of office for the House, IMO. House members are forced to spend too much time and attention to fundraising and electioneering. Their terms should be increased to 3 years.
Here are limits I propose:
a) An overarching and cumulative period of 20 years service in every and all capacities to include elective and appointive office, consulting in any capacity, and lobbying.
b) A limit of 2 terms for any and every office except for civil service employment which should be capped at 20 years of cumulative service for all employees and a limit of 6 years in any supervisory or managerial civil service job. The latter would assure turnover that yields fresh ideas while also limiting span of influence. Note that the limit of 2 terms does not mean consecutive but 2 in total. (see note 2, below)
c) A limit of 15 years for all federal magistrates, judges and justices in every and all courts of jurisdiction. Terms should be staggered to assure that no president picks a number that skews the courts’ political makeup, to the extent possible. Any who choose to retire or who die before end of term should mean the seat remains vacant until the next term begins for the seat. This would prevent strategic retirements such as the one that resulted in Katanji Jackson being appointed.
d) No one who has served in a regulatory capacity - in congress or in the bureaucracy - should be allowed to be employed in the industry they regulated or in a closely related industry, to include retired military from being employed by defense contactors and suppliers.
I apologize for such a verbose response, but I’ve come to these concepts over a long life (more than 6 decades as an adult) and close observation of political and government practices. I have been acquainted with federal congressmen (house and senate), judges and high ranking bureaucrats.
Note 1: About 155 million people voted in 2024; a 10 % threshold for a successful petition to charge officials would, therefore be 15 million signatures.
Note 2: Suppose a person were elected to the house, then the senate then became a judge. The maximum term in the house would be 6 years (based on revised terms) and in the senate 12 years which would mean that person could serve as a judge for only 2 years given an 20 year lifetime service limit.
, while there’s truth in your comment, I don’t see intelligence as being a major factor for leadership. If their heart is in the right place, they will work for the people, rather than for money, power & self interest.