2007-02-15 15:34:20 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The system is not the problem, the legislative branch needs to grow a pair and flex it muscles against the other branches.
2007-02-15 15:51:38 · answer #1 · answered by Mark P 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope. President's are 1/3 of the checks and balances. You want dualing presidents? It is hard enough to get anything done!
2007-02-15 23:38:37 · answer #2 · answered by cantcu 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
And eventually three Presidents, with a Third Triumvirate? No thanks -- I prefer we stay as far away from Imperial Rome as possible. More than one President would shift the balance of power drastically in favor of the executive; considering all the powers just one President has now, consider how much power two of them would have. With influence like that, it would be very easy to overthrow the Congress and judiciary, and we'd become a dictatorship once the power struggle between the two wiped one or the other off the face of the earth. Sorry, but one executive is plenty, thanks.
2007-02-16 01:01:40 · answer #3 · answered by Richard S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure what you mean, but Congress has the power to override the president, and when Congress is controlled by a different party than the President, checks and balances are in action.
2007-02-15 23:38:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
checks and balance would be good. haven't seen much of that in the last 6 years.
2007-02-15 23:39:20 · answer #5 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's stupid, nothing would ever get done. It would just be a lot of partisan bickering.
2007-02-15 23:50:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋