Should the executive branch be held more accountable to the legislative branch?

[SBu]

I haven't watched a lot of parliamentary proceedings of our friends across the pond, but the little that I have seen intrigues me. The Prime Minister is forced to answer questions and address concerns real time and while there is a system of questioning and answering, it is refreshingly combative and frequent (once a week I think).

So here's the question I guess: Do we hold the executive branch accountable enough?

I think no. It probably would have been positive to have Bush in front of the legislature once a week answering questions and concerns, as well as Obama doing the same.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Failure of employees in Washington, as well as many employers (read: "We The People") does not mean that the foundation is flawed. I don't believe it is. In my opinion, we have a "We The People" problem in this Republic. And it is the lack of knowledge and action by many "We The People," that envokes the cause and effect you are speaking of in brevity.

 

[Carjosse]

Well if you want a system similar to our parliamentary system (you have one above you aswell), you would probably have to give up voting for a president because the reason we can question the Prime Minster is that he sits in our legislative branch as a member of the House of Commons for whatever riding he/she represents. It would also require the restructuring of your parties. The Prime Minster must answer questions or his party risks losing the election.

 

[SBu]

Failure of employees in Washington, as well as many employers (read: "We The People") does not mean that the foundation is flawed. I don't believe it is. In my opinion, we have a "We The People" problem in this Republic. And it is the lack of knowledge and action by many "We The People," that envokes the cause and effect you are speaking of in brevity.

I'm sure you would agree that the foundation looks nothing like the reality today. I don't think the executive branch was ever intended to have the scope of power it enjoys today, and along with that kind of power should come more accountability to the people via their elected representatives in Congress.

 

[SBu]

Well if you want a system similar to our parliamentary system (you have one above you aswell), you would probably have to give up voting for a president because the reason we can question the Prime Minster is that he sits in our legislative branch as a member of the House of Commons for whatever riding he/she represents. It would also require the restructuring of your parties. The Prime Minster must answer questions or his party risks losing the election.

Not saying to change the system we currently have, but to hold the executive more accountable.

 

[Carjosse]

Not saying to change the system we currently have, but to hold the executive more accountable.

Do you want questioning like this:

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I'm sure you would agree that the foundation looks nothing like the reality today. I don't think the executive branch was ever intended to have the scope of power it enjoys today, and along with that kind of power should come more accountability to the people via their elected representatives in Congress.

What are you alluding to, when speaking of "scope of power"?

 

[SBu]

Do you want questioning like this:

Only if I can wear a sweet blue turbin like the gentleman in the background.

 

[Linc]

The current Executive Obama is already under the thumb of the GOP of NO..
In effect, the GOP House of No has declared Martial Law and has now started their Inquisition with the Holder Impeachment..
We all know BHO is next .

 

[Linc]

The GOP House of NO is part-time work for full-time pay plus the best Health-Care in the world,
paid for by American tax-payers..
And what have we gotten this year, no Farm bill, no Immigration reform, no Tax reform, no Transportation bill..
How 'bout some accountability on the GOP HOuse of No .

 

[SBu]

What are you alluding to, when speaking of "scope of power"?

The Expanding Power of the Presidency | Hoover Institution

 

[Carjosse]

Only if I can wear a sweet blue turbin like the gentleman in the background.

That is Tim Upall our Minister for Multiculturalism.

 

[SBu]

The current Executive Obama is already under the thumb of the GOP of NO..
In effect, the GOP House of No has declared Martial Law and has now started their Inquisition with the Holder Impeachment..
We all know BHO is next .

I said Congress, not House or Senate specific.

 

[SBu]

That is Tim Upall our Minister for Multiculturalism.

He takes Movember very seriously.

Kidding aside, you must feel proud that your Prime Minister and other ministers actually have to publicly answer questions. It would be refreshing if we imitated that part of your system.

 

[Linc]

It makes no difference, since the GOP of NO can filibuster whenever they please..

I said Congress, not House or Senate specific.

As you know, one Senator, Diapers Vitter, can hold up all action in the Senate and currently is..
What a waste of our money, eh?

 

[SBu]

It makes no difference, since the GOP of NO can filibuster whenever they please..

As you know, one Senator, Diapers Vitter, can hold up all action in the Senate and currently is..
What a waste of our money, eh?

You are now exposed as a Canadian!

Anyway, I think this is something that most people no matter party affiliation could get behind since at one time or another it would benefit both.

 

[Linc]

Which recent POTUS had the most executive orders??

The Expanding Power of the Presidency | Hoover Institution

Are you down with impeaching Holder, so he can't argue in front of the SCOTUS for Voting Rights for all americans ?

 

[SBu]

Which recent POTUS had the most executive orders??

Are you down with impeaching Holder, so he can't argue in front of the SCOTUS for Voting Rights for all americans ?

Take a deep breath. We aren't talking about this administration specifically. I'm speaking generally. Wouldn't you have enjoyed holding Bush's balls over the fire every week? Don't you think that kind of accountability should be expected?

 

[Linc]

eh is actually a rightist meme I've had thrown at me by you rigthtists..

You are now exposed as a Canadian!

Anyway, I think this is something that most people no matter party affiliation could get behind since at one time or another it would benefit both.

As soon as Dems see the GOP take their boot off of Obama's throat, we might be willing to talk..
When we see Dems help GWB out of his Medicare part D ****up, then we see 58 months of sabotage, we've had enuff, period .

 

[Linc]

I recognize your temperament is centrist as you say you lean; thank you..
Sorry I can't be that way with the "you lie" GOP and their 58-month sabotage led by Can'tor..
GWB is history..I prefer to live in the present moment..
For instance, sequester will never give us a balanced budget..
The GOP House is incapable of passing any necessary bills..

Take a deep breath. We aren't talking about this administration specifically. I'm speaking generally. Wouldn't you have enjoyed holding Bush's balls over the fire every week? Don't you think that kind of accountability should be expected?

The GOP controlled Congress until the 2006 election..
before February of 2007, the GOP screwed the Post Office for decades to come..

 

[Perotista]

I haven't watched a lot of parliamentary proceedings of our friends across the pond, but the little that I have seen intrigues me. The Prime Minister is forced to answer questions and address concerns real time and while there is a system of questioning and answering, it is refreshingly combative and frequent (once a week I think).

So here's the question I guess: Do we hold the executive branch accountable enough?

I think no. It probably would have been positive to have Bush in front of the legislature once a week answering questions and concerns, as well as Obama doing the same.

In theory, they are suppose to be co-equal branches. But in reality, the members of congress of the president's party do his bidding and protect him. Regardless of who is president, the congressional members of his party become more part of the administration than of congress itself. This is especially so when it comes to ceding powers or ignoring them to suit the president's desires. Only in the immediate aftermath of Watergate has congress, which of course was then controlled by the opposition party, the democrats try to retrieve some of its constitutional powers from Nixon and then Ford, Republicans.

It is an interesting concept of the president standing before congress to answer questions. But in our system, at least as long as I have walked this earth, the questioners are the press.

 

[SBu]

In theory, they are suppose to be co-equal branches. But in reality, the members of congress of the president's party do his bidding and protect him. Regardless of who is president, the congressional members of his party become more part of the administration than of congress itself. This is especially so when it comes to ceding powers or ignoring them to suit the president's desires. Only in the immediate aftermath of Watergate has congress, which of course was then controlled by the opposition party, the democrats try to retrieve some of its constitutional powers from Nixon and then Ford, Republicans.

It is an interesting concept of the president standing before congress to answer questions. But in our system, at least as long as I have walked this earth, the questioners are the press.

And we know how well they do at that. It just seems like Q&A in our system is pretty pathetic and usually just boils down to grandstanding. Arguments are timed, retorts are timed, and both are canned (meaning prearranged). There is no real debate or accountability.

 

[Linc]

I would love to see Obama questioned day-in and day-out by the House and Senate..

And we know how well they do at that. It just seems like Q&A in our system is pretty pathetic and usually just boils down to grandstanding. Arguments are timed, retorts are timed, and both are canned (meaning prearranged). There is no real debate or accountability.

 

[Perotista]

And we know how well they do at that. It just seems like Q&A in our system is pretty pathetic and usually just boils down to grandstanding. Arguments are timed, retorts are timed, and both are canned (meaning prearranged). There is no real debate or accountability.

True, most of the time there are really no hard questions asked. Then with the answers given are round about answers that never answer the question. I do think it would be interesting or at least tried. Perhaps once a month you could have a program called 20 questions. But I would be afraid the questioning would develop much like they do now in congressional hearings, a representative or senator giving a 5, 10 minute speech and by the time he gets around to his question, his time has expired.

 

[SBu]

True, most of the time there are really no hard questions asked. Then with the answers given are round about answers that never answer the question. I do think it would be interesting or at least tried. Perhaps once a month you could have a program called 20 questions. But I would be afraid the questioning would develop much like they do now in congressional hearings, a representative or senator giving a 5, 10 minute speech and by the time he gets around to his question, his time has expired.

Did you see the Canadian post earlier in the thread? Looks like they manage to keep it relatively respectful and to the point.