Who is the more liable imbecile in the current tariff debacles, the imbecile levying tariffs or the bipartisan collective group of imbeciles who gave away their Constitutional power?

As long as Congress has the power to impeach, they can regain power. The problem lies with those who scorn bipartisanship.

A Parliamentary system would be a huge shift, but it would end the gridlock at least. Whoever won the most seats would actually get to Govern.

And if the status of the supreme court were demoted in the process, not so much would be riding on a handful of life-long appointments.

Or they can start repealing laws that give up power to the executive. It’s been a problem for decades and despite complaints to the contrary, it has indeed been an issue that is brought up regularly. What happens is that people say yup, that’s a problem, and then swiftly forget about it.

Hamilton doesn’t get a say.

He was a snake.


:clap::clap::clap:!!! Most of our so-called representatives main purpose is to represent themselves.

Who had more EO’s.

GW Bush

FDR by an order of magnitude.

■■■■ Alexander Hamilton.

I figured you wouldn’t answer my question.

I did. Bush, I believe out of those three. So what?

Did you complain about it as much as you complain about Obama’s?

Which Obama EO do you feeeel I complained about?

You didn’t answer the question.

No? Strange.

The other question. But you knew that.

My apologies, no I didn’t. What post number?

This one? I did answer it. “It” and “Obama’s” are quite vague.

I recall laughing uproariously about Obama’s EO to close Gitmo.

I don’t have an issue with the president having this much power over tariffs. The president has a broader constituency in mind than congress does.

Even though it would take hundreds of them to agree on which tariffs to levy, there could just be hundreds of pork-swapping deals made in backrooms, with everyone willing to screw over the rest of the country just to protect their home district. Bad ideas would take forever to be undone as well.

A strong executive makes it easier to do, undo, and keep up with the speed of economy. A strong executive also has a sense of responsibility, and a target on their back for blame that a congressperson wouldn’t have. The current system can work and make us fabulously wealthy as long as the executive is properly vetted. I don’t want to go to a less efficient system just because of a temporary clown.

I respectfully disagree with this viewpoint, but I will make a counter proposal.

Adopt THIS amendment to the Constitution:


Section 1. Whenever the President of the United States in accordance with this Constitution and the laws of the United States shall issue any Executive Order or memorandum, he shall, no less than 96 hours prior to the effective date of said Executive Order or memorandum, transmit a copy of the same to both Houses of Congress.

Section 2. Upon receipt of such notification, within 72 hours, it shall be in order for any member of their respective House to demand a vote on a resolution of disapproval, such vote to be held immediately, without intervening debate, motion or point of order and if such resolution of disapproval shall pass both Houses, it shall immediately become law and the disapproved Executive Order or memorandum shall immediately become null and void and without force.

Section 3. If the Executive Order or memorandum shall have the effective of levying a tariff, embargo or other trade barrier, such Executive Order or memorandum may be disapproved as above, but may also be disapproved by a simple resolution of the United States House of Representatives alone.

Currently, while Congress can pass joint resolutions of disapproval, they are subject to a Presidential Veto which takes a 2/3rds majority of each house to override, which makes them a worthless control on the President.

This amendment would give Congress a solid method of controlling the Presidency and would move the government back towards Congressional supremacy as was intended.

1 Like

Structurally it would take some work, but it could be accomplished.

Realistically, the House of Representatives would have to be expanded to the range of 1,000 to 1,250 seats, to be demarcated every 10 years by a boundary commission such as is used in Great Britain. Seats would run without concern of State lines for purposes of minimizing population discrepancies. The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and all territories would be included in districting.

The Senate would remain as it is currently, but members terms would be reduced to 4 years and each State would elect a Senator every two years.

The House of Representatives would select the Prime Minister and ministers from their own membership, from the party or coalition that controls a majority of seats. Tax/revenue bills and appropriation bills would be subject to House approval only, while other legislation, after passing the House would go to the Senate, which would have a limited review/amendment power, but the House would be the stronger body, the Senate would be subordinate, as is the case with most national upper houses.

The Senate would elect the President to a fixed term and he would generally be a figurehead, with very limited powers, mostly carrying out ceremonial duties or (on the advice of the government) diplomatic duties. He would have a role in appointing the Prime Minister similar to the roles of President’s in other countries.

The nicest thing about a parliamentary system is that it subordinates the executive to the legislature and allows the legislature to dump an ineffective, incompetent or maverick executive.

In recent years, I have become very disenchanted in the American style Presidential system. When you have split control, the system essentially breaks down.

As for the judiciary in such a system, I would provide for a network of bipartisan judicial nominating commissions to select the judiciary. In such a system, the judiciary becomes less important. While they might overturn egregiously unconstitutional acts, generally they are subordinate to the legislature on matters of ordinary law.

Such a system can be designed and implemented without disparaging or weakening the important safeguards of the Bill of Rights and other provisions, such as habeas corpus.

To the poster that values efficiency, this would provide efficiency AND legislative supremacy.