Special prosecutor? What we need is a whole fourth branch of government

KingOrfeo

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Posts
39,182
To police the other three, at the federal, state and local levels. I would call it the Tribunate, after the Tribunes of the Plebs in ancient Rome. Unlike those, these tribunes would have no veto power, but they would have much else. Here's how it works:

1. The mission of the Tribunate is to investigate, and then to publicize and/or prosecute, any and all public corruption, misconduct, or abuse of power at its level.

2. The Tribunate would be headed by a board of ten tribunes, elected by straight party-list proportional representation. That would open the possibility of one or two Libertarians, Socialists, etc., getting in. After all, what a Libertarian or Socialist considers an abuse might not appear so to anyone else, but still warrants investigation at the very least.

3. Each tribune would have absolutely unlimited authority to investigate government business, including access to top-secret materials, dark budgets, and ongoing police investigations. Any attempt to conceal anything from a tribune would be a felony.

4. However, a tribune would not have unlimited authority to publish his findings. That would require a majority vote of the board, in which event all tribunes would be immune from prosecution or suit. An individual tribune who unilaterally decided to publish could in no circumstances whatsoever be restrained from doing so, but neither would he enjoy immunity from legal consequences; he would just have to decide whether the matter is important enough to be worth the risk.

5. The Tribunate -- again, collectively, by majority vote -- would have the authority to indict and prosecute, concurrent with the authority of public prosecutors, except that the Tribunate's authority would be limited to public officials and employees. The Tribunate would have its own staff of lawyers for the purpose.

6. To assure independence from political pressure, the Tribunate would have a certain guaranteed level of funding that the legislature could not reduce without a supermajority vote of 2/3.

7. All agencies currently tasked with similar missions, such as inspectors general and internal affairs bureaus, would be hived off from their present departments and placed under the Tribunate; that way it has its eyes everywhere from the start.

8. The Tribunate would also be in charge of all functions that might be called "metagovernmental," such as running elections and redrawing electoral districts after the census. All elections offices would also be placed under the Tribunate. There would be no more locally elected supervisors of elections.
 
Last edited:
Your "tribunate" exists. It's called "The Supreme Court of The United States". I'm surprised that you've never heard of it.
 
Your "tribunate" exists. It's called "The Supreme Court of The United States". I'm surprised that you've never heard of it.

It does not perform the functions described. Courts of law do not investigate or prosecute, and the officials and attorneys who do do not have such powers as the tribunes would have. Furthermore, the judicial branch needs independent policing just like the others, and judges can't be entrusted with that function, they do tend to stick together against threats from non-judges.

As for who polices the tribunes, well, police departments and public prosecutors would have the same authority as they have now, and tribunes would not be immune from investigation or prosecution except as described above.
 
Last edited:
Leave it to KO to come up with a Kangaroo Court for political enemies.
 
HA HA HA HA HA! Said the guy who has probably never been before a judge trying to quash an overbroad discovery motion.

Judges can do ANYTHING THEY FUCKING WELL PLEASE. All it takes is someone making a complaint and the sky's the limit. You don't like how intrusive it is? Appeal to a different judge - who ALSO gets to do whatever the fuck he wants to. Still don't like it? Appeal again and again and so forth until you get to the SCOTUS. Which, by the way is the ONLY body which can try the President while sitting as President.

Your way would be to make someone ABOVE everyone and RESPONSIBLE TO no one. That's called fascism. Usually it leads to a LOT of people getting imprisoned and murdered. Some of whom probably even thought they'd be the ones ordering those imprisonments and murders.
 
Leave it to KO to come up with a Kangaroo Court for political enemies.

Don't forget that the Republican tribunes would have the same range of powers as the Democrats. Doesn't it make you drool to imagine what they could do with it?
 
HA HA HA HA HA! Said the guy who has probably never been before a judge trying to quash an overbroad discovery motion.

Discovery is not investigation in the sense I am using the term.

Really, it never occurred to me that the RWs would have a knee-jerk reaction against this; suspicious of government as you are, I should think you'd jump at the idea. Is it that you suspect the existence of far too much indictable corruption and embarrassing shenanigans among public officials on your own side, and that it dwarfs that on the other side? If you do, well, I'm inclined to agree. ;)
 
Last edited:
HA HA HA HA HA! Said the guy who has probably never been before a judge trying to quash an overbroad discovery motion.

Judges can do ANYTHING THEY FUCKING WELL PLEASE. All it takes is someone making a complaint and the sky's the limit. You don't like how intrusive it is? Appeal to a different judge - who ALSO gets to do whatever the fuck he wants to. Still don't like it? Appeal again and again and so forth until you get to the SCOTUS. Which, by the way is the ONLY body which can try the President while sitting as President.

I think you mean the US Senate presided over by the Chief Justice. There is no precedent for trying a "sitting" president in the federal court system let alone the SCOTUS. He would have to be impeached and removed from office by trial in the Senate before he could be tried in Federal or state court.
 
I think you mean the US Senate presided over by the Chief Justice. There is no precedent for trying a "sitting" president in the federal court system let alone the SCOTUS. He would have to be impeached and removed from office by trial in the Senate before he could be tried in Federal or state court.

And he would enjoy the same immunity from tribunician prosecution -- but not from unlimited investigation and, at the board's discretion, publication. Don't you wish the Tribunate had existed when Obama was president? Or that it will before the next Democrat takes office?
 
You folk need a federal level ombudsman.

An ombudsman or public advocate is an official, usually appointed by the government or by parliament, but with a significant degree of independence, who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints of maladministration or a violation of rights.

Be an awful busy job in the US.
 
You folk need a federal level ombudsman.

An ombudsman or public advocate is an official, usually appointed by the government or by parliament, but with a significant degree of independence, who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints of maladministration or a violation of rights.

Be an awful busy job in the US.

Problem is who decides the violation of rights?

You don't even believe in them...LOL
 
Hell.

The News media think THEY are the only ones who are intelligent enough to run things already and try to...
 
And he would enjoy the same immunity from tribunician prosecution -- but not from unlimited investigation and, at the board's discretion, publication. Don't you wish the Tribunate had existed when Obama was president? Or that it will before the next Democrat takes office?

No. I don't want any left wing tinkering with the Constitution for any reason other than that accomplished through the traditional avenues for amendment.
 
You folk need a federal level ombudsman.

An ombudsman or public advocate is an official, usually appointed by the government or by parliament, but with a significant degree of independence, who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints of maladministration or a violation of rights.

Be an awful busy job in the US.

That's pretty much what I'm proposing, at all levels of government.
 
No. I don't want any left wing tinkering with the Constitution for any reason other than that accomplished through the traditional avenues for amendment.

Well, of course what I'm proposing -- which is in no sense left-wing, where did you get that, this is a proposal you would expect to hear from a Libertarian -- would require amendment through those channels. I certainly don't want a Tribunate that Congress created and therefore can abolish or neutralize.
 
And FTR, this is not something I came up with in reaction to Trump; I've had the idea in mind since the Clinton Admin, and have proposed it before on other messageboards.
 
Problem is who decides the violation of rights?

You don't even believe in them...LOL

Believe in limiting certain rights does not mean not believing in those rights. Rights are not an all or nothing thing.
 
I'm dreaming of something with the same role but more teeth.

That overrides the judiciary. No reason to reinvent the government just supply a bit of oversight and a means to bring complaints into the public light. Let politicians then ignore published public documents to their own peril.
 
I proposed something similar not too long ago. But who polices them? Who watches then watchers? And don't say Congress, because that would just politicize then body which is exactly contrary to the mission. The body would need to be totally impartial and above reproach. And where would find one such person let alone a whole body of the?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Where there is man, there can be no peace. (Elegy - Twilight Zone)
 
Back
Top