AirTalk for April 2, 2013

Why two presidents could end bipartisan gridlock

Two Presidents are Better than One

Two Presidents are Better than One bookcover

David Orentlicher makes the case for two presidents in “Two Presidents are Better than One: The Case for a Bipartisan Executive Branch.”

The American public has long endured bipartisan gridlock and filibustering over things like Obamacare, the fiscal cliff and the sequester. Former Indiana state representative David Orentlicher has had enough and suggests a radical change – How about two presidents instead of one?

In his new book, “Two Presidents are Better than One: The Case for a Bipartisan Executive Branch,” Orentlicher argues that government today is not how the Founding Fathers imagined it. The gridlock between the presidency and Congress is too inefficient. By amending the Constitution, executive power could be split. According to Orentlicher, this would end political gridlock, check the executive power of the President and also allow the presidents to divide responsibilities. In every decision, both presidents would have to agree.

Is our current system ineffective? Is Orentlicher’s proposal even possible? Would two presidents end partisan gridlock? What if the two presidents can’t agree?

Guest:
David Orentlicher, author of “Two Presidents are Better than One: The Case for a Bipartisan Executive Branch” (NYU Press); professor of constitutional law at Indiana University and a former state representative in Indiana.


blog comments powered by Disqus