Imagine the office of the President does not exist. The US is governed by Congress alone with the speaker of the house tentatively representing the country abroad. Would that work?
So the Articles of Confederation again, basically? That didn’t work in the beginning, and definitely wouldn’t work now. Even with some changes.
Yes, just like it does in scores of countries around the world.
With the present Congress? No way in heck.
No, especially if we voted in a know nothing, do nothing Congress like we have now.
If the Speaker of the House were also the commander-in-chief of the military, then I think it could work. At that point, the Speaker would just be the equivalent of a Prime Minister.
Probably more like the Queen of England, representing the country on state visits but no executive power.
That basically was what the government was under the Articles of Confederation. It didn’t work.
As much as I dislike Executive Orders, this makes a good case for them.
Because waiting on congress to act we would all starve, be over run by the tiny nation of Grand Fenwick, become jobless, die of ill health or have to learn the Chinese language.
I could see the Demon🐀s making the country worse than the USSR or Hitlers Germany.
We now would get Pelosi as de facto head of state.
Why not the Senate
Congress means both, house and Senate.
Why not the Senate conduct foreign affairs instead of Speaker
I was thinking about state visits abroad to represent the US.
Do you want the whole Senate to fly to Paris or Moscow?
No. I don’t want anyone in Congress but if i had to choose I would go Senate majority leader over speaker
6 years term vs 2 year makes for more consistent policy
I have an ignorant question: who is currently more powerful or important, the speaker of the house or the Senate majority leader?
Depends how you define it.
Speaker is 3rd in line of secession currently.
That is irrelevant, in your hypothetical scenario
I just asked why the Speaker over the senate majority leader.
I don’t think either would be effective
That would be a nightmare.
No, because we wouldn’t have the separation of powers to protect the people from a corrupt government.
That unicorn wont hunt! The notion of a separation of powers (checks and balances) is now broken, having been corrupted by Party Politics... the President and the Senate are clearly colluding to allow the President to act above the law and Obstruct Justice. Our Founders did not envision Senators putting Party over People (i.e., their individual State constituencies).
We now have our own Eastern-European style corrupt government under Trump’s thumb. He committed extortion with Ukraine, but he’s been getting away with it for years now. He uses extortion to keep all of the Republicans in Congress in his pocket. If this corruption isn’t put down decisively, our Country will only slip deeper into the hole we find ourselves in!
If your answer is no, why not?