Should we try to add new checks and balances to the constitution?

[More Than A Feeling]

Clearly, the ones the founders set up haven't not prevented an Imperial Presidency or one party domination (which makes sense, because they didn't foresee the rise of parties).

Personally, I would add an amendment that adds "we really mean it" after the passage that gives congress the power to declare war. No more of this resolution crap. If we are going to fight a war, then congress has to formally declare war.

What checks and balances would you add?

[RoyGBiv]

1. Well, no ...

I'd be satisfied with the old ones, actually.

That the checks and balances inherent to the Constitution are not followed is less a problem with the Constitution than it is with those of us who have for decades not paid enough attention and have not screamed loud enough when various government officials have circumvented them. My biggest issue with the peace movement of the 60's is that it focused too heavily on short term goals, to wit, the goal was to end the Vietnam War, and little attention was paid to the circumstances that allowed that war to happen.

The separation of powers is fairly clearly stated in a "we really mean it" sort of way, at least in the legal and philosophical language of the 18th century. But, before the ink was really dry on the document, battles developed between these various branches, and the battles have raged ever since. In theory, this is a good thing. All the branches guard their power jealously, which keeps any one branch from taking too much. The problem, as you imply, is the rise of political parties, more specifically the monolithic political parties we have today. Not even the Republicans in Nixon's time followed the President in such lock step as these bastards we have now. In fact, legislative Republicans brought Nixon down every bit as much as the press or the Democrats. They essentially forced him to resign.

The paper is fine, but for the paper to work requires human beings. That's where things get tricky.

[Cleita]

2. Been thinking that maybe we should go to a parlaimentary

system. Could be done with an ammendment I think. Also, I would like to see the President have to answer to the people's representatives about his actions like Tony Blair does to the House of Commons. I know he's a Prime Minister, but I don't think we really need to change the executive office just the occupants.

[More Than A Feeling]

3. Yes, an amendment requiring "question time"

Require the President to go before congress once a week, and answer the hard questions.

At the very least, this would keep the president from taking these endless vacations.