• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does American Need Two Presidents?

Does America Need 2 Presidents?


  • Total voters
    25
No, America needs to reduce the power of the president so that one can do the job. The congress critters have created a monster (huge federal nanny) that is out of control;

It was not always a problem to have a one-party presidency, but over the past 75 years, the Oval Office has amassed an exceptional amount of power. Presidents control policy for air quality, energy exploration, education, health care, consumer protection and many other matters through agency regulations, executive orders, and other unilateral actions. Presidents dominate foreign policy even more. They decide when we go to war, which foreign governments we recognize, and which undocumented immigrants we deport. As Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., wrote, we now have an imperial presidency.
 
Absolutely ****ing not. We already have basically designed a modern day government aristocracy and adding a 2nd President would facilitate an even greater grab of power right out of the hands of the populace (even if elected by the populace.)
 
It's a very thought provoking question that TIME magazine recently asked. Your thoughts?

Does America Need More Than One President?

Well, back in the day there was this document called the Constitution and one of the rules set up in that document was that the top vote getter for President would get that office and the runner up would be Vice President. We could have stayed that way but Burr and Jefferson knotted things up in 1800 which lead to Electors directly electing the VP (and Hamilton's death by duel).
 
I've sometimes wondered if we'd be better off with the executive office being a Triumvirate... say President, a separately elected Vice P., and a "Federal Governor" (elected by the State legislatures from among all 50 Governors), and that no executive action could be taken unless all three were in agreement.


This would also restore some real power to the States at the same time...
 
I've sometimes wondered if we'd be better off with the executive office being a Triumvirate... say President, a separately elected Vice P., and a "Federal Governor" (elected by the State legislatures from among all 50 Governors), and that no executive action could be taken unless all three were in agreement.


This would also restore some real power to the States at the same time...

If you want to give power back to the states then repeal the 17th Amendment and stop this insanity of 30 year Senators and congressmen.
 
While in principle, this Roman Republican way of giving executive authority seems like the best way to run a Republic, I question its prudence in the absence of legislators who serve for life.

A lifetime legislator is just as bad if not worse than an imperial president! Presidential authority you can scale back or blunt through a forceful legislative body (Congress), but a lifetime legislator can only be blunted by death. Imagine, if you will, a Congress dominated with lifetime members the likes of a Strome Thurman or a Nancy Pelosi. :eek:
 
That would be worse than having more than one wife.
 
Silly idea. Who would break a tie? I would be open to cabinet rule though. They can rotate the presidency among them based on height--shortest one first.
 
If we're going to make such a drastic change, I'd be in much more in favor of adopting a parliamentary system.
 
A lifetime legislator is just as bad if not worse than an imperial president! Presidential authority you can scale back or blunt through a forceful legislative body (Congress), but a lifetime legislator can only be blunted by death. Imagine, if you will, a Congress dominated with lifetime members the likes of a Strome Thurman or a Nancy Pelosi. :eek:

Yet somehow the Roman Republic survived for five hundred years under said system.

Having a Senate composed of former executive officers as the supreme authority worked wonders. A person like Pelosi likely wouldn't have gotten into the Roman Senate, as they would have had a very difficult time securing election to the executive.

Moreover, as the source of power, the legislative power doesn't need to be reigned in.
 
If you want to give power back to the states then repeal the 17th Amendment and stop this insanity of 30 year Senators and congressmen.

Congressmen only serve 2 year terms. Senators only serve 6 year terms. They serve 30 years because the people like them. Do you want to take away the right for idiots to vote?
 
Congressmen only serve 2 year terms. Senators only serve 6 year terms. They serve 30 years because the people like them. Do you want to take away the right for idiots to vote?

Most state legislators, however, tend to turn over a whole lot faster and since they are the ones who would vote for Senators it would make the senate a WHOLE lot more accountable to the people.
 
Congressmen only serve 2 year terms. Senators only serve 6 year terms. They serve 30 years because the people like them. Do you want to take away the right for idiots to vote?

It sounds like...using your logic...he wants to reduce the extent to whith for "idiots to vote".

More specifically, he wants to allow them to vote for their representatives in the House of Representatives, while States Legislators would vote for Senators.

So they would not be having their "right to vote" taken away, it would simply be returned to the original extent that said vote directly affected.
 
We have only one president now, and we have one president since the beginning! We also saw(and see) a circus with few presidents(I hope everyone understands which). Look at our today's situation and try to imagine, what will happen with two presidents!
 
Two POTUS's?

This is what happens when a writer waits WAY too long to write an article and his editor needs it by the end of the day.
 
Last edited:
Two still isn't enough to handle ALL of the bull**** that gets thrown in front of the POTUS at any given moment. Preferably a larger conglomeration of people than one or two would suffice in managing the maneuverability of this nation, all 316,000,000+ of us.
 
Back
Top Bottom