Would ‘Prime Minister’s Questions’ Work in the States?
|
|
John McCain has proposed it, but is it a gimmick or an improvement? Would it make the Executive Branch more transparent, or simply increase the partisan rancor on both sides?
Christopher Hitchens seems to think it’s a great idea. I am not convinced. Chief among the differences between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britian is that the PM is actually an elected member of Parliment. The office of the President, however, is distinct and separate from the legislature. I believe that this distinction would lend an entirely different dynamic to the proceedings.
It is an interesting idea though, and one that may well be worth attempting. I certainly wouldn’t argue for LESS communication between Congress and the President. I’m simply not sure that we can import and adapt England’s democratic processes as quickly and successfully as we have their sitcoms.
I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
McCain is spitting on the Constitution in the same fashion that he did with the 1st Amendment. The fact of the matter is, the Framers sought to avoid a parliament not open the door to a new one.
This is an abomination. Thank goodness McCain won’t be elected.
PS - Why wouldn’t you argue for LESS communication? After all, the less they talk with each other the better off we all will be.
A real American version would actually have to be a spirited debate between the speaker of the house and congress. The prime minister is selected similarly to how we select House Speaker and presides over the House of Commons.
In the early 90s a few bills were filed to require it. The biggest difference here is the seperation of powers argument: members of the executive branch shouldn’t be called to the House well by members of the legislative branch.
Granted, I’ve loved watching the British on C-SPAN. However, it raises Constitutional questions here.
If you read the constitution, you will find that our process now is nothing like the process the founding fathers intended for us to have.
I don’t know the history behind the change, but I would suggest reading the Executive Branch, and the 12th amendment. The way it was established is very much like McCain is suggesting, I believe.
I would just be happy with a President who would open a newspaper or watch some televised news, or heck read a book.
As for a PMs questions, I think someone above hit the nail on the head, why don’t we start by actually returning to full sessions of the House and Senate - with… debates! wouldn’t that be a nice change?