Should we have ONE President for domestic affairs and ONE President for foreign affairs? They would each have their own budget, congress, etc.
The entire job is too much for one President and one cabinet to take care of in the manner it should be.
2006-11-05 16:03:29 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
You know?.. that wouldn't be a bad Idea, the states that vote republican could live with their own consequences, without messing up everything for the rest of us.. each party would be responsible for it's own half of the deficit.. then we would see which party did the best job.. PS.. split the house, senate and presidency up, they only argue without getting anything done anyway, and they would only be able to live off the budget of the states that voted for them.. good idea, but how to have something like that pass?.
2006-11-05 16:10:59 · answer #1 · answered by david n 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I think that the President doesn't have all that much power as we give Presidents credit for. They are mostly following the lead of their cabinet. They don't make all the decisions or have all the power - that's why it's a democracy. Just like a CEO doesn't make all of the decisions for a company - they delegate authority and give a final word. A President already gets a Vice President who should be able to assist in alot of areas. If one President thought one way and the other had different ideas - we'd have a battle in the white house - that's why it's set up the way it is - so that there is order and not chaos and constant disagreement. It's bad enough how politicians disagree as it is - with 2 Presidents to disagree on things - how could they act as one? We have diplomats and foreign emabassies for support too in foreign affairs.
2006-11-06 00:09:10 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think that would work. The two areas clearly overlap. Trade is an international issue, for example, but it's effects are domestic. The military is involved in foreign countries, but its budget is raised through domestic taxes. Unless you have some kind of system to determine which of these president rules in cases of overlapping conflict, I don't see how that could be possible.
2006-11-06 00:07:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The only times in history that has ever worked is when they governed different territories. Having two with equal power for different jobs in the same country is doomed to fail.
2006-11-06 00:08:29 · answer #4 · answered by Mike R 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That would serve to further gridlock the bureaucracy. Internal and Foreign affairs often blur together, and conflicts would occur. Its best left to one, as our founders debated and concluded
2006-11-06 01:59:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
yeah, but i think if we had two, we would just have them arguing all the time because they would be disagreeing with each other. even if they were designed for separate affairs, i don't think they would be able to act as equals - they'd always be challenging the other group's decisions and views.
2006-11-06 00:06:55 · answer #6 · answered by mighty_power7 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. That would be like having two popes-- it's been done, and it doesn't work.
2006-11-06 00:05:45 · answer #7 · answered by Lanani 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nah...they wouldn't get along.
2006-11-06 00:05:37 · answer #8 · answered by ღღღ 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
NO, thats a dumb idea
2006-11-07 18:15:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
hmmm, not a bad idea. but like many things, they sound good in THEORY......
2006-11-06 00:08:59 · answer #10 · answered by ur a Dee Dee Dee 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋