In America, we are not given political power, it is earned by demonstrating to the People that you are worthy of their vote. John Boehner did not become Speaker of the House by being lazy. In all likelihood he earned it by being a good Congressmen for his party and his district over the years.

Now, at least for two years, he has a property claim as toward the post of United States Representative. Now, suppose he dies before that term is up...should he be able to determine, at the very least, who finishes the remainder of his term?

A better example might be a Senator since they have 6 years.

So, can any argument be made that people who earn their political power in life ought to be able to pass it on as they see fit, at least for the remainder of the term of power they earned?

My initial opinion is that there is not a persuasive case to be made that political power should be inherited but perhaps others might sway me?

Absolutely not. I would/am totally against it.

Inheritance of political power = monarchy and/or dynastic power.

To a degree, our system allows for "inheriting" a post by using appointments to fill seats vacated because of illness, death, retirement or resignation (forced or otherwise). However, in most of those cases, I believe a special election is then held within a reasonably short period of time so the person holding the office has to be accountable by a vote of the people.

Overall, though, the answer to your question is easy: no. If we start having legacy posts, we may as well be Britain.

Following a death the individual is not inheriting the power. The individual is carrying out the obligation the deceased was asked to perform on behalf of the voters.

We apparently view it differently.

Con_Alma;768123 wrote:Following a death the individual is not inheriting the power. The individual is carrying out the obligation the deceased was asked to perform on behalf of the voters.

We apparently view it differently.

I agree with you. I'm talking about a hypothetical world wherein an elected official might be able to include his political power in his gross estate and bequest it.

Nyet.

[video=youtube;31g0YE61PLQ][/video]

BoatShoes;768232 wrote:I agree with you. I'm talking about a hypothetical world wherein an elected official might be able to include his political power in his gross estate and bequest it.

I know what you are up to in this thread.

Public power is not owned by the official that wields it. The people own the power and select a representative to wield it on their behalf. Therefore it would not be just nor does the elected official have the right to take ownership from the people and will it to his offspring. One justly cannot include something in his estate that he does not own.

Take an administrator of a national park. He does not own the land. He cannot justly sell it. He cannot will it as part of his estate to his heirs.

majorspark;768473 wrote:Public power is not owned by the official that wields it. The people own the power and select a representative to wield it on their behalf.

Exactly. Hence, this thread is dead.

The political power is granted to certain people through vote to be managed and used for the will of the people. It is not owned by any individual and therefore cannot be transferred to another by any one person. It can only be granted and provided for use by the collective.

Boatshoes...political power is not "earned". It is loaned by the people either through vote or legislative act.

A lot of folks are saying that our elected officials don't really "own" political power and ok that is fine, I agree with that...but I think the point is, even if they could own it, we would agree wouldn't we that it should not be inheritable right? After all that is why we left England isn't it?

BoatShoes;768967 wrote:A lot of folks are saying that our elected officials don't really "own" political power and ok that is fine, I agree with that...but I think the point is, even if they could own it, we would agree wouldn't we that it should not be inheritable right? After all that is why we left England isn't it?

Say one owns a kingdom, owns all lands, infrastructure, armed forces, and the subjects that inhabit his kingdom. He owns all political power and authority. Much like what went on in England in years past. If one truly owns something than he holds sole power and right to pass what he owns to whomever he wishes. In most cases in history that has been to a close family member.

If a subject does not like this he has several choices. Leave the kingdom, convince the owner (the king) to voluntarily relinquish ownership, or rebel against it and change the ownership by force or arms. It came to the latter for us.

Stpidity is passed down genetically, Why let political power pass the same way?

It's doesn't matter if one thinks they inherit power or not. It does not matter if someone tries to bequeath power. It simply doesn't matter because the people will determine with whom they want the power to reside. In the end they always do.

Con_Alma;769473 wrote:It's doesn't matter if one thinks they inherit power or not. It does not matter if someone tries to bequeath power. It simply doesn't matter because the people will determine with whom they want the power to reside. In the end they always do.

Well as MajorSpark points out, we might imagine a world wherein power might be owned as in a kingdom. If this world were to exist, as it has in the past, you would agree then that it might be better off for the People to revolt against this reality and create a mechanism for this power to be broken up, no?

It seems like everyone would agree that it would be bad if political power were passing from one generation to the next merely because of heritability, no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords


no

What kind of power is this:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/17/nearly-20-percent-of-new-obamacare-waivers-are-gourmet-restaurants-nightclubs-fancy-hotels-in-nancy-pelosi%E2%80%99s-district/

Looks like two Americas alright: one for the obama/pelosi/reid cronies and supporters, and one for the rest of us having to support this marxist administration and its radical agenda.

BoatShoes;769752 wrote:Well as MajorSpark points out, we might imagine a world wherein power might be owned as in a kingdom. If this world were to exist, as it has in the past, you would agree then that it might be better off for the People to revolt against this reality and create a mechanism for this power to be broken up, no?

It seems like everyone would agree that it would be bad if political power were passing from one generation to the next merely because of heritability, no?

I'm saying that even if a structure were in place to pass power to an heir it wouldn't truly be power. The people ultimately decide who has the power. Eventually the masses always determine what is done.

It doesn't matter f one thinks they inherit power or not. It does not matter if someone tries to bequeath power. It simply doesn't matter because the people will determine with whom they want the power to reside. In the end they always do.