Steven S.

Taggart

-Film and Culture-

Thursday Class

Spring Semester 2015

4-29-15

My Perfect Political Structure

Outline your perfect political structure. Define its laws and its governing body. Answer
as best you can the problems that we face right now in education, economy, social and legal
areas. Build your utopian government and describe its workings in detail.

My perfect political structure would closely mirror the current American style of
government, with several notable changes. In order to broach this topic, a brief synopsis
of the history of law and its impact on society is in order.
Long ago, in the Fertile Crescent, humanity was just beginning to get on its feet.
The hunter-gatherers of old were learning to farm, and cities were becoming a palpable
aspect of the proto-societal landscape. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_society
Ambitious warrior-kings ruled the lands, and expertise with the sword, and the ability to
inspire others to follow ones desire gave rise to a kingly order, hierarchical society was
thus discretely availed. After bloody conquest, a king was left with the task of
maintaining his or her empire. To do this, laws were implemented. One of the oldest
surviving bodies of law from the period is undoubtedly the Laws or Hammurabi, or the
Code of Hammurabi as it is sometimes called.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi)
This ancient body of law gave rise to the eye for an eye or tooth for a tooth
notion, something that most modern citizens are implicitly familiar with, which is a
phenomenal notion to comprehend, as this code is very ancient, written in 1754 B.C.E.
The importance of the code of Hammurabi cannot be overstated. Basically, nobody in this
society was entitled to get away with rampantly selfish criminal lifestyles, instead, they
were to be held responsible for their perceived crimes. The state was held responsible for
punishing perceived wrong-doers and meting out punishment, and the people were held
responsible to behave. The laws were codified into a large public monolith, placed in the
center of the city in which they were enforced. Crimes were placed along a gradient from

serious to benign, and as a result, the Babylonian society (Hammurabi was a Babylonian)
gave rise to one of the most important legal systems of all time, as it was one of the first.
Over the advancing centuries, cultures took the concept of law and tweaked it,
changing aspects of the laws, and improving details of their implementation in order to
address the concerns of the societies which the governed, and law was generally evolving
to a more refined state. It was soon seen that comprehensive sets of law would ultimately
give rise to notions of exceptional societal worth. The most advanced societies generally
proffered had the most cutting edge legal concepts, wisely enacted brilliant bodies of
laws, or codes. Eventually, law became commensurate with most citizens concept of
justice. Athenian democracy eventually emerged, (developed around the 5th centure
B.C.E. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy]) this was a wildly different
style of government, one without a kingly class. Its development had much to do with
the advent of wisdom as applied to a healthy societal structure and the impact of ancient
thinkers on the affairs of the state. http://worldjusticeproject.org/what-rule-law.
Corruption, however, abounded. When tyrannical law-makers manouevred their
way into positions of political power, the subservient populations often suffered. Tyranny,
by the way, comes from the title of Tyrant, a focusing of democratic power into the
vessel of a single person. I find the etymology of this word fascinating. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant
The English noun tyrant appears in Middle English use, via Old French, from the
1290s. The word derives from Latin tyrannus, meaning "illegitimate ruler", and this in turn
from the Greek tyrannos "monarch, ruler of a polis"; tyrannos in its turn has a PreGreek origin, perhaps from Lydian.[6][7] The final -t arises in Old French by association with the
present participles in ant

Only after morphology and the ages warped our understanding of the word
Tyrant was it to be associated with abuses of power. Nevertheless, abuses were often
seen. The necessity of a more sophisticated system of law and government, one which
was capable of fluidly adapting to the needs of society was emerging. More than a
millennium later, in early-medieval western society, this desire came to a head.
The signing of the Magna Carta (Magna Carta: latin for the Great Charter of
Liberties) by King John of England in 1215 radically re-defined the nature and scope of
any monarchial ruler in the region. A principal feature of this document was the real and
tangible sequestration of Kingly power over a subservient population by a collegiate
body. In this case, it was the barons and the tenacious and influential bourgeoisie of
young England who demanded kingly reform, at sword-point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta Later on, we will see that the concept of
Parliament or rather, a separation of powers doctrine arise as direct result of the signing
of the Magna Carta. It soon became prevalent amongst sophisticated civilization, that no
one man would be able to completely rule his country- he must rely on the help and input
of a vast system of societally approved roles. Parliament, the Senate, The Judiciary,
Enforcement Agencies, Military Commanders, Landless citizenry with the ability to vote,
an ever-specializing lawerly class, even the ability to overturn and redact laws in light of
grandiose societal changes abounded as a result of the slow and but steady evolution of
modern societies political structure. When American revolutionists finally overthrew the
Absolut tyranny [- source: The Declaration of Indepedence by Thomas Jeffersonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdom ] of its former parent
empire in 1783, the stage was set for many of the finest minds in western culture to enact

a profoundly fresh style of Government. The American Governmental system was born,
and today it is widely recognized as the most powerful establishment of its kind in the
history of the world.
So, what would the idyllic utopia look like? I would include several distinct
features as an aspect of my new governmental system. The most important aspect of
American Government, in my mind, is the separation of powers doctrine. No one body
nor establishment will ever be fully capable of directing the course of a nation without
relying on sound, balanced decision making skills in this way. Teamwork among
collegiate bodies in the capital of a nation is obviously working, so lets keep it that way.
Three braches of government seems ideal to me. Three, after all, is a very lucky number,
and if too many checks and balances are instituted into any particular governmental
structure, it will likely become unwieldy. Expediency is often needed by any government.
Today, many view Americas cantankerous system as slow and frustrating, which leads
me to believe that some modification of our system is warranted.
In times of great crisis, the executive branch, or commander in chief, will be
allowed to wield a form of power approaching that of the warrior-kings of old. The
notion of military luster isnt necessarily a bad thing, and if the world wars taught us
anything, its that war is hell. So, the ability to streamline a government in order to meet a
rising crisis is justifiable.
Secondly, I feel that the 4 year rule for presidential rule is graceless.
Contiguous executive influence upon the other branches of government (legislative,
judicial) is probably a good thing, it helpst to homogenize national policy- yet I value the
idea of turning over presidential power upon a public election. Greece had it right in

many things, and I believe that direct citizen involvement in governmental affairs is a
great idea in any age. So, three aspects will change. To be a citizen of the U.S., one must
be 18 years of age, legally papered, and in good standing with the countries moral
expectations- so serial murders or foreign visitors wouldnt be allowed to vote.
Presidential terms would last for 10 years, and the possibility of subsequent re-election
would be impossible. Abdication of power ensures that great power wont beget great
abuse. ( With great power comes great responsibility- Voltair.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/709747-with-great-power-comes-great-responsibility)
Thirdly, the electoral college would be abolished. It is eternally frustrating to know that I
have no direct power to elect my president because of the damned electoral college.
The Judiciary will operate similarly, though with changes. For some reason, the
Constitution of the U.S. didnt actually explicitly grant the Supreme Court of the United
States direct authority over the other two branches of government; only after the
landmark case Marbury v. Madison following President Thomas Jeffersons election
was the concept of the courts power even accurately defined.
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/marbury-madison.html This needs to be fixed. The
Supreme court justice and the general power structure of the courts needs to be radically
tailored and re-balanced, to ensure more direct, immediate, and timely response to the
needs of the public. No longer will savvy lawyers be able to appeal, delay, obfuscate or
otherwise obstruct the arrival of justice from the judges gavel. The Supreme Court Justice
will be allowed to serve for 25 year terms, not for life. At the Supreme Court level, its
my contention that far too much power is garnered from lifetime appointments of the
Judiciary.

Lastly, the Senate and the House of Congress needs to address just how much
power it can exert over the myriad states of the American nation. It is obvious to me that
citizens like being part of a large and powerful, relevant and globally potent nation. Yet,
people love to be called independent and free at the same time. I feel that specific venues
need to be carved out for the Nations Federal purview, which arguably has been
addressed already by our Constitution. Nevertheless, the rampant abuse of the Interstate
Commerce Clause of the Constitution of The United States of America is damnably
broad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
Put simply, when something is sold over state lines, the congress can dictate the terms of
the interaction. This, at the very least, flies in the notion of a states rights activists
notions of free enterprise and American notions of freedom. However, contentious issues
like military policy, the environment, and human rights all deserve to be constued under
the direct purview of the ultimate law-making bodies of the newly forged nation. In order
to hammer out the details of this rampant re-structuring of our already well-evolved
national system, a lot of experts would need to be consulted, and a lot of work would
need to be done.
Though it generally works extremely well for mundane affairs, I feel that
Americas system of government is becoming far too complicated, slow, and brittle. This
means that reform is likely, but it doesnt mean that the strides our country has made in
the cruel face of time are to be snickered at, as I feel that Americans have it pretty good.
Contemplation of reform is healthy, and if history has proven anything, its that change
can be healthy, and that change is unavoidable.