Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Are Two Presidents Better Than One?
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Dare
Apr 29, 2013, 9:54:49 AM4/29/13
to
Apparently, this guy thinks so.
An executive branch as effective and beneficial for "the people"
as the Congress?
From Amazon:
When talking heads and political pundits make their "What's Wrong with America" lists, two concerns invariably rise to the top: the
growing presidential abuse of power and the toxic political atmosphere in Washington. In Two Presidents Are Better Than One, David
Orentlicher shows how the "imperial presidency" and partisan conflict are largely the result of a deeper problem-the Constitution's
placement of a single president atop the executive branch. Accordingly, writes Orentlicher, we can fix our broken political system
by replacing the one person, one-party presidency with a two-person, two-party executive branch.
Orentlicher contends that our founding fathers did not anticipate the extent to which their checks and balances would fail to
contain executive power and partisan discord. As the stakes in presidential elections have grown ever higher since the New Deal,
battles to capture the White House have greatly exacerbated partisan differences. Had the framers been able to predict the future,
Orentlicher argues, they would have been far less enamored with the idea of a single leader at the head of the executive branch and
far more receptive to the alternative proposals for a plural executive that they rejected.
Analyzing the histories of other countries with a plural executive branch and past examples of bipartisan cooperation within
Congress, Orentlicher shows us why and how to implement a two-person, two-party presidency. Ultimately, Two Presidents Are Better
Than One demonstrates why we need constitutional reform to rebalance power between the executive and legislative branches and
contain partisan conflict in Washington.
http://www.amazon.com/Two-Presidents-Are-Better-Than/dp/0814789498
And from WaPo:
With Barack Obama and John McCain in the White House, 2009 was a pivotal year in American politics. Democrats and Republicans worked
together to pass a jobs bill, close Guantanamo and end the recession. Obama rallied liberals behind a version of McCain's
health-care voucher program, providing insurance to everyone, while McCain found enough GOP votes to push the DREAM Act through
Congress.
Of course, this didn't happen. But it could have if David Orentlicher, the author of "Two Presidents Are Better Than One: The Case
for a Bipartisan Executive Branch," had his way.
"A coalition presidency carries the potential for many important benefits," Orentlicher writes in the book, to be published by NYU
Press next year. "A balancing of power between the executive and legislative branches, a dampening of partisan conflict in
Washington, an executive branch more representative of the entire electorate, real opportunities for third-party candidates to win
election, and wiser presidential decision making."
Orentlicher teaches law at Indiana University, but his conviction that a dual presidency would benefit the republic was forged
outside the classroom: From 2002 to 2008, he was a state representative in Indianapolis.
"I saw part of the conflict at the state level, and I thought: 'Why does this have to be so partisan?'?" he said in an interview.
"It's not the people we elect - it must be something in the structure in our political system."
Creation of a dual executive would require a constitutional amendment, but Orentlicher is confident that such a system would end
gridlock in Washington. If both the winner and runner-up of November's election took office, they would have incentive to cooperate
rather than compete.
"What do presidents want to do when they win? Leave a legacy," Orentlicher says. "It leads them to do things that can be
monumental."
Besides, Orentlicher thinks partisanship is the byproduct of the race for votes. "There is a lot more overlap than you get the sense
of from them fighting," he says. "In the election, they have to persuade voters and draw distinctions. You could get agreement on 80
percent of most of the issues."
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-06/opinions/35453986_1_voucher-program-david-orentlicher-presidency
An executive branch as effective and beneficial for "the people"
as the Congress?
From Amazon:
When talking heads and political pundits make their "What's Wrong with America" lists, two concerns invariably rise to the top: the
growing presidential abuse of power and the toxic political atmosphere in Washington. In Two Presidents Are Better Than One, David
Orentlicher shows how the "imperial presidency" and partisan conflict are largely the result of a deeper problem-the Constitution's
placement of a single president atop the executive branch. Accordingly, writes Orentlicher, we can fix our broken political system
by replacing the one person, one-party presidency with a two-person, two-party executive branch.
Orentlicher contends that our founding fathers did not anticipate the extent to which their checks and balances would fail to
contain executive power and partisan discord. As the stakes in presidential elections have grown ever higher since the New Deal,
battles to capture the White House have greatly exacerbated partisan differences. Had the framers been able to predict the future,
Orentlicher argues, they would have been far less enamored with the idea of a single leader at the head of the executive branch and
far more receptive to the alternative proposals for a plural executive that they rejected.
Analyzing the histories of other countries with a plural executive branch and past examples of bipartisan cooperation within
Congress, Orentlicher shows us why and how to implement a two-person, two-party presidency. Ultimately, Two Presidents Are Better
Than One demonstrates why we need constitutional reform to rebalance power between the executive and legislative branches and
contain partisan conflict in Washington.
http://www.amazon.com/Two-Presidents-Are-Better-Than/dp/0814789498
And from WaPo:
With Barack Obama and John McCain in the White House, 2009 was a pivotal year in American politics. Democrats and Republicans worked
together to pass a jobs bill, close Guantanamo and end the recession. Obama rallied liberals behind a version of McCain's
health-care voucher program, providing insurance to everyone, while McCain found enough GOP votes to push the DREAM Act through
Congress.
Of course, this didn't happen. But it could have if David Orentlicher, the author of "Two Presidents Are Better Than One: The Case
for a Bipartisan Executive Branch," had his way.
"A coalition presidency carries the potential for many important benefits," Orentlicher writes in the book, to be published by NYU
Press next year. "A balancing of power between the executive and legislative branches, a dampening of partisan conflict in
Washington, an executive branch more representative of the entire electorate, real opportunities for third-party candidates to win
election, and wiser presidential decision making."
Orentlicher teaches law at Indiana University, but his conviction that a dual presidency would benefit the republic was forged
outside the classroom: From 2002 to 2008, he was a state representative in Indianapolis.
"I saw part of the conflict at the state level, and I thought: 'Why does this have to be so partisan?'?" he said in an interview.
"It's not the people we elect - it must be something in the structure in our political system."
Creation of a dual executive would require a constitutional amendment, but Orentlicher is confident that such a system would end
gridlock in Washington. If both the winner and runner-up of November's election took office, they would have incentive to cooperate
rather than compete.
"What do presidents want to do when they win? Leave a legacy," Orentlicher says. "It leads them to do things that can be
monumental."
Besides, Orentlicher thinks partisanship is the byproduct of the race for votes. "There is a lot more overlap than you get the sense
of from them fighting," he says. "In the election, they have to persuade voters and draw distinctions. You could get agreement on 80
percent of most of the issues."
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-06/opinions/35453986_1_voucher-program-david-orentlicher-presidency
0 new messages