Is that in the best intrests of the country or do you think each branch should be controlled by a different party?
2006-10-14 09:05:12 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that it should be legislated that one party can't control both branch's. What I'm asking is which scenario do you think is more effective.
2006-10-14 09:18:13 · update #1
MR M - I'm talking about what's best for the country. The problem now is too many people put party before country.
2006-10-14 09:23:21 · update #2
Absolutely not, given the lack of checks and balances already present, the purpose of bicmeralism is to have one house checking the other. Bill begins in the House and then moves to the senate for final approval to go to President. Not enoug balance right now in USA.
2006-10-14 09:18:45 · answer #1 · answered by P 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you've 2 counts of 'duh!' in this question. First, the Republican social gathering has managed both the legislative and govt branches for the perfect six years. What handed off? disaster! 2d, Wikipedia's accuracy has been discovered to be equivalent to Encyclopaedia Britannica. those who're unaware of the technique used assume that in basic terms all of us can positioned something up on Wikipedia. no longer so!! ultimately, it is a mistake to make assumptions on topics about that you comprehend no longer something. This appears a trend of yours. do not embarrass your self so publicly.
2016-12-04 20:07:24 · answer #2 · answered by domingo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The best candidate should win regardless of party.
2006-10-14 09:08:03 · answer #3 · answered by paradigm_thinker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For a political party it would be great to control EVERYTHIIING, Mwhahahahaha!!!!!!!
2006-10-14 09:19:44 · answer #4 · answered by Mysterio 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Isn't this what we now have.
2006-10-14 09:09:05 · answer #5 · answered by firewomen 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"We the people" enough said.
2006-10-14 09:07:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋