And I remember this character Juanita Broaddrick, is about as low as you can go.  I have urged that the Democrats should beat the living daylights out of these Republicans and deal with them with disgust and ridicule but they don't ever learn.  

That weakness, not being able to fight this Republican pond scum, is why Americans think they are weak and there is no question in my mind that that is why John Kerry lost the election, despite the Republican shenanigans in Ohio.

Seriously, this goes back to Oklahoma City and the black helicopter conspiracy crowd, who hated Clinton but flocked to embrace W.

and at the hands of the so-called "strict constructionists."  "Search" doesn't really mean search, "probable cause" doesn't apply to searches that aren't "searches," and apparently the word "warrant" is just fluff.

by changing the structure of the government, which would of necessity involve constitutional amendments.  Part of the reason that our executive branch is prone to such abuses is the singular nature of its direction.  That is, having a single person in charge of the entire executive branch, responsible for appointing all senior executive officers, and for the most part having the right to fire them as well, means that the entire executive functions "at the pleasure of the president," and however the president is inclined, so shall the rest of the executive be administered.  And most functions of government fall under the executive, including of course, the military and law enforcement, which leaves the other branches with not much to fight back with.

Of course, "executive privilege" and the power to appoint members of the federal judiciary add to the problem.

Even the legislative branch has some decidedly undemocratic elements to it, not because of the constitution, but the remedies to these problems can, and probably should, lie in constitutional amendments.

To fix the problem with the consolidation of executive power, we must break that power up.  Instead of a president, we should designate a disparate executive made up of a Secretariat committee of four persons to run each department of the federal executive.  To deal with situations involving the coordination of multiple departments of the executive, there should be a Steering Committee with a rotating membership, such that every member of any of the executive Secretariats will serve an equal amount of time on the steering committee during their four-year term.

The Executive Secretariats should neither be elected by the people directly (which might lead them to claim "a mandate for the people"), nor be appointed by either of the existing branches of government.  Rather, they should be "hired" by committees elected specifically for that purpose, and it should remain clear that they are serving simply to administer the executive departments, to carry out the policies and laws as directed by the Legislative Branch, not to determine policy.  I'd recommend assembling the Executive Hiring Board (or whatever we might call it) by electing two persons for each House District (in the off years between House elections) to be in the pool of candidates, then have lotteries to determine the hiring committees for each department.  

Candidates for the positions in the Secretariats would apply, as in any job, and those members of the hiring pool who were not selected to be on any specific hiring committee would read applications to determine which candidates are qualified to be considered by the committees, and recommend which committee(s) should interview them.  Second, the people would vote in an election of planks.  Rather than voting on any specific people, the people would vote on a variety of possible positions with regard to the issues facing the nation.  Regarding each issue, any plank which receives at least 10% support should be considered part of the hiring paradigm, and the committees should try to hire an executive that reflects a representative cross-section of America, rather than any single party's perspective.

I have ideas on reforming the Legislative Branch as well, but I've rambled on long enough for this comment.

Realistically there needs to be a means by which groups of ordinary people can form businesses that can obtain investment.  If there was not an incorporation mechanism, then only very wealthy people could create new business startups.

Also there are some types of projects that are simply not possible on the scale of individuals: for example a steel mill, an automobile company (Tesla Motors comes to mind), a computer manufacturer (Apple), etc.  All of these require funds on a scale that simply isn't possible for individuals.  Even Bill Gates would have a hard time setting up a steel mill.  

So for those reasons we need to have an incorporation mechanism, to create legal entities whose existence is independent of their founders.  And as well for the sake of continuity of a business entity after its founders have gone on to other things or died (otherwise imagine the enormous legal mess that would occur every time a key person enters or leaves a company).  

However we necessarily have to have checks and balances, or we end up where we are today, with economic power that becomes de-facto political power outside of anyone's ability to limit its excesses.  Thus my proposals.

(The key difference between Republican Libertarians and Democratic Libertarians is:  RLs believe that only the state has coercive power that must be checked; RDs believe that private-sector entities can also obtain effective coercive power and thus must also be checked.)