Are you for or against implementing more timely and effective checks and balances on the president?

Question

The Supreme Court's landmark decision repudiating President Bush's plans for Guantanamo prisoners exemplifies effective checks and balances. However, to prevent future erroneous interpretations of the law, and erroneous executive orders SOONER, checking and balancing the president's actions needs to be conducted immediately after the president declares that knowledge by the Supreme Court and Congress of a particular negotiation's details will not hinder it. Perhaps, Congress could also elect three additional Supreme Court justices exclusively to oversee the president.
And when everything the president says officially is also audiorecorded by three separate machines to prevent tampering, the Supreme Court's twelve justices and the 535 members of Congress will be able to access to the scientific, word-for-word truth concerning any of the president's actions.

C.M. Fabara
Brooklyn College
c.fabara@yahoo

Answer 1

Your question (leaving the opinions and suggestions that follow it aside) is akin to asking if we're for or against clean air. Of course we're all for "timely and effective" checks and balances. Generally speaking, policitcal scientists will probably say the existing system has been pretty effective. "Timely" and the political process (which is what you're talking about) don't go together too well. The system just takes time and will no matter what modifications are made. It's not really very possible to hand a 3-member committee power in the political or judicial process without setting up checks on them. The public's decision making process is slow, laborious, inefficient, and painstaking and the only thing worse would be to not have it.

Answer 2

Good day from Long Island..

Seems to me the only people against puting more check on the president would be the congress itself.
They have absolutely neglected their duties over the past four years and don't expect that to change anytime soon.