Imagining a fourth government branch, a House of the People
The key word is 'facts.' A juror in the selection process is instructed that they should consider only the facts presented in a trial. Facts in this House of the People similarly would not be permitted to be chosen based simply on one's predilection.
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Today figuring out what is factual, let alone even real, requires an active search for reliable sources. Too often citizens vote based on their instincts rather than giving time to a variety of viewpoints. (I confess to having done just that with my vote for Ronald Reagan for his first term as president.)
Advertisement
Elizabeth Bjorkman
Lexington
What we need is term limits and to get out from under two-party system
After reading Josh Lerner and Marjan Ehsassi's 'It's time for a fourth branch of government,' I found myself wishing for them to take two constructive steps: Look closely at The Federalist Papers and study the historical record of overreaching legislative, executive, and judicial branch actions (for example, the administration of Andrew Jackson or the Warren court).
Advertisement
The Framers intended a complex, time-consuming process as a safeguard against emotional, parochial government processes. What we might derisively call gridlock can be frustrating, but it is as they intended. Many examples of overreach are a reasonable reaction to this circumstance.
The Framers also understood human beings. They were fully aware that achieving a perfect balance of power among three branches of government was an ideal that would be tested often and, occasionally, not meet their standard.
In their day public service was something one did for a time before returning to the farm, shop, or office. What our Framers did not anticipate was the advent of two distinct barriers to rational discourse in the performance of that service: the establishment of essentially permanent, nationally controlled political parties and career politicians.
Since eliminating established national political parties has no realistic path, perhaps proposing an amendment to establish term limits would do more to encourage wider participation in government and, hopefully, open the door to a more truly representative Republic without resorting to creating an entirely new branch.
Peter Vangsness
Medway
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
7 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Who said it: Tucker Carlson or Rashida Tlaib?
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Advertisement The Islamic Republic of Iran? Pfffft, you don't have to worry about those guys! It used to be that only lefty champions against islamophobia could see the Supreme Leader's chants of 'Death to America' as cries of resistance against Western colonialism. But these days, some folks on the right seem to see the bright side of the mullahs, too. Like Matt Walsh, a conservative podcaster, culture warrior, and commentator for the Daily Wire. Walsh posted that Iran 'does not pose any credible threat to the United States,' which is an interesting take given his deep fear of immigrant labor. A regime with the goal of destroying the West has nothing on the dangers to Americans of Advertisement Iran does not pose any credible threat to the United States. We do not need to get involved in yet another war in the Middle East for reasons that have nothing to do with defending our own nation. — Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) If you're still a bit nervous that a regime that calls us the Big Satan might still be a threat after decades of dodging nuclear restraint, don't worry — there's bipartisan agreement that we're all good! In fact, some liberal personalities think that Iran's proxies can do some good. Hyper conservative podcaster Matt Walsh, meet hyper liberal podcaster Hasan Piker. The left is eyeing Piker as a rising star in the war to win over young men. Problem is, Piker has a few hot takes — like the fact that Iran's terrorist proxies are a force for 'resistance.' During one of his As far as I know, Mandela didn't kill hundreds of Americans. But hey, it's all about the resistance. the media is already working in real time to manufacture consent for how israel is still the victim after its direct strike on iran. — hasanabi (@hasanthehun) Bibi Netanyahu: The enemy — on the left, and the right Who knew Representative Rashida Tlaib, the Democrat from Michigan, and Tucker Carlson had so much in common! Maybe on Tucker's next podcast, they could talk about how an ally that eliminated an impending nuclear threat is the real enemy. The Israeli government bombing Iran is a dangerous escalation that could lead to regional war. War Criminal Netanyahu will do anything to maintain his grip on power. We cannot let him drag our country into a war with Iran. Our government must stop funding and supporting this… — Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) Whatever you think of tariffs, it's clear that now is the worst possible time for the United States to participate in a military strike on Iran. We can't afford it. Thousands of Americans would die. We'd lose the war that follows. Nothing would be more destructive to our country.… — Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) Fiscal restraint is IN on the left Everyone knows that Thomas Massie, a small-government conservative representative from Kentucky, is worried about spending the American tax dollar. So is his libertarian-minded compatriot, Republican Senator Rand Paul, also of Kentucky. Israel doesn't need US taxpayers' money for defense if it already has enough to start offensive wars. I vote not to fund this war of aggression. — Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) The American people overwhelming oppose our endless wars, and they voted that way when they voted for Donald Trump in 2024. I urge President Trump to stay the course, keep putting America first, and to not join in any war between other countries. Every American should hope and… — Rand Paul (@RandPaul) But did you know that the progressive squad member Ilhan Omar is also worried about your tax dollars? Regardless of what Trump thinks, Israel knows America will do whatever they want and feels confident about their ability to get into war and have the American government back them up. Israel also knows they can always rely on getting America to protect and serve its needs.… — Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) I certainly appreciate fiscal restraint in my lawmakers. That all comes down to prioritizing essential versus nonessential. This crew can't seem to agree on entitlement spending. But when it comes to Advertisement Especially as Republicans surge with working-class voters, it isn't surprising to see more right-wing voices questioning foreign entanglements. What is surprising is just how much those voices sound like their counterparts on the left — the same people that right-wing personalities have dubbed anti-American for years. And still, figures like Tucker Carlson and Matt Walsh present themselves as true patriots, as truly America First. And they seem to think that by ignoring the rest of the world, and just focusing on domestic issues, that America will be safer. But there's an issue with that analysis. The Islamic Republic is a regime that is built on the desire to destroy America — and it sure isn't going to ignore us. Carine Hajjar is a Robert Novak Fellow with the Fund for American Studies. Carine Hajjar is a Globe Opinion writer. She can be reached at
Bloomberg
15 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Reagan Wasn't the Conservative He's Made Out to Be
For those of us of a certain age and sensibility, Ronald Reagan is the quintessential American conservative. He not only vanquished the Evil Empire and restored business's animal spirits. He rode a horse, wore a cowboy hat and, when his wife came to visit him in hospital after he survived a 1981 assassination attempt, quipped 'honey, I forgot to duck.' By comparison, Donald Trump is an interloper as well as a Yahoo. But does this view survive forensic analysis? In a recent column on Sam Tanenhaus' new biography of William Buckley, my colleague, Toby Harshaw, makes it clear that Trumpism is deeply rooted in the American conservative tradition. And, as I made my own journey through Tanenhaus' thousand pages, I was struck by a heretical thought: The real interloper in the conservative tradition was not Trump but Ronald Reagan (and, by implication, his great imitator, George W. Bush). Reagan was the ultimate double agent: Beneath his cowboy hat, he smuggled two ideas that were anathema to movement conservatives, neoliberalism and neoconservativism, into the heart of Republican policymaking.
Boston Globe
20 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Lean budget threatens to spark public college turf war
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up At this May's meeting, after a presentation about an upcoming advertising campaign for state financial aid programs, Pedraja expressed concern that helping low-income students attend four-year schools would take money away from free community college. Advertisement 'We are very concerned that shouting from the treetops that our public four-year institutions are free for certain students based on income will further deplete very limited financial aid for the whole system,' Pedraja said. Advertisement Pedraja said that financial aid money is expected to be tight next year, and free community college is codified in statute, while the MASSGrant Plus expansion is not. 'Not to take away from the importance of marketing toward these students and making education available for all, which I do believe, we ought to be cautious about over-promising to students who are most in need of support,' Pedraja said. In a follow-up interview, Pedraja doubled down on his concern that the state is 'over-promising' by advertising free four-year college for low-income students. He again emphasized the distinction between free community college, which is codified in law, and other financial aid, which comes from a pot of money that can run out. Practically, however, this is a distinction without a difference — at least legally, if not politically. Pedraja is correct that free community college is codified in the Department of Higher Education spokesperson Nicole Giambusso confirmed that free community college and the MASSGrant Plus expansion are both subject to annual appropriations. The House and Senate budget proposals for fiscal 2026 both include money for all these programs, although the Senate's funding level is somewhat higher. State Senator Jo Comerford, Senate chair of the Joint Committee on Higher Education, said lawmakers see these programs as coming from different pockets of money. 'One does not cannibalize each other,' Comerford told me. Advertisement When free community college was established, expanding aid for all low-income students was seen as key to ensuring that students who are qualified to attend a four-year university won't be channeled into community college just because it's free. After all, according to There are potential funding sources — like money collected from the surtax on income over $1 million — that could be tapped to keep both programs running. 'I don't think it should be either/or,' Bridgewater State University President Frederick Clark told me. 'I don't think the segments should be working at cross purposes. We should be leaning in to make sure funding is adequate for financial aid for all students.' It is true that in a tight budget year, lawmakers have to make choices. Policy makers should be honest in crafting their budget around what can realistically be funded. In our interview, Pedraja said he 'would love for everybody to have more access to higher education.' But the troubling implication of his statement is that if there is a Sophie's choice to be made, Massachusetts should prioritize aid for community college students, regardless of income, over low-income students at four-year schools. If the state wants to help the most students achieve their academic potential, that is the wrong approach. Instead, the guiding principle should be helping each student attend the college that's right for them. Advertisement As these financial aid programs continue, state policy makers should collect data to determine their impact. Which aid programs are boosting college enrollment and also college completion rates and postgraduation employment? Are other ways of improving college success working, like If hard choices have to be made about funding, they should be based on which programs most help students succeed. Shira Schoenberg can be reached at
