UK Prime Minister Cameron resigns. Could this sort of rule work for the USA?

[as seen on tv]

Last night the british prime minister resigned, and called new elections, after his strongly advocated “remain” (in the EU) position went down in flames in a voter referendum. Would this sort of rule work for the USA? (constitutional amendment?). Here are my questions, and possible benefits.

1. Suppose we make a rule that says “If, as president, you issue an executive order that is found to be unconstitutional, you must resign and call new elections” . . .? This would seem a sensible way to stem the tide of ever more absurd attempts by presidents to circumvent the constitutional separation of powers.
2. As a corollary, if you direct a cabinet official/agency head to ignore or disobey laws passed by congress, you must resign (or be impeached). I’m think things like:
   • Undeclared wars
   • Narcotics smuggling
   • IRS harassment of political opponents
   • Interfering with the DOJ or FBI during criminal investigations
3. - I rather like the idea of holding elections quickly – 60 or 90 days. Are we any better off after 12 months of the Hillary and Trump show? Hundreds of millions have been spent, and regular TV programming has been pre-empted. And nothing was settled.
4. All senators and house members need to stand for re-election if the president commits any of the aforementioned illegal acts. This is a good time to reassess whether the current congressional majorities were complicit in our misery,

Please add your thoughts – worth a constitutional amendment, or hidden pitfalls to this?

 

[Emily]

While I do like the thought process behind your idea, the US system was designed for more stability than that. Separation of powers, states' rights, and impeachment, and the vice-presidency were all put in the constitution for the sake of having a stable system without having an abusive or tyrannical central authority that could act with impunity and immunity.

I'd say we don't need to amend the constitution; we need to return our government to abiding by it. If anything's to be amended, we should go back to the original plan of senators appointed by state legislatures and clarify the proper role of the Supreme Court. Get the money out of elections and our "representatives" out of the pockets of the you-know-who, and many problems solved.

Remaining would be partisanship. A president who, as you said, issues unconstitutional orders or directs executive branch officials to ignore or disobey laws should be impeached. That system broke down because of party politics. Limiting presidential terms helped some.

 

[Dino]

Last night the british prime minister resigned, and called new elections, after his strongly advocated “remain” (in the EU) position went down in flames in a voter referendum. Would this sort of rule work for the USA? (constitutional amendment?). Here are my questions, and possible benefits.

1. Suppose we make a rule that says “If, as president, you issue an executive order that is found to be unconstitutional, you must resign and call new elections” . . .? This would seem a sensible way to stem the tide of ever more absurd attempts by presidents to circumvent the constitutional separation of powers.
2. As a corollary, if you direct a cabinet official/agency head to ignore or disobey laws passed by congress, you must resign (or be impeached). I’m think things like:
   • Undeclared wars
   • Narcotics smuggling
   • IRS harassment of political opponents
   • Interfering with the DOJ or FBI during criminal investigations
3. - I rather like the idea of holding elections quickly – 60 or 90 days. Are we any better off after 12 months of the Hillary and Trump show? Hundreds of millions have been spent, and regular TV programming has been pre-empted. And nothing was settled.
4. All senators and house members need to stand for re-election if the president commits any of the aforementioned illegal acts. This is a good time to reassess whether the current congressional majorities were complicit in our misery,

Please add your thoughts – worth a constitutional amendment, or hidden pitfalls to this?

I stood outside that bus. I looked upon it with reverence.
I stood in that room all alone.

It never occurred to me to walk on it and sit down.
What is that called?
Don't know if it's class, dignity, respect...?

On your top-post, I like #1, you stole my thunder.

I was going to say "Hey Barack, bad news, if the Supreme Court shoots your overreaches one more time you will have to step down."

Enough is enough of the pouty little king. He acts like he's being unfairly treated with the irony of not realizing he's trying to screw us with unconstitutional dictates.

 

[Sickofleft]

Last night the british prime minister resigned, and called new elections, after his strongly advocated “remain” (in the EU) position went down in flames in a voter referendum. Would this sort of rule work for the USA? (constitutional amendment?). Here are my questions, and possible benefits.

1. Suppose we make a rule that says “If, as president, you issue an executive order that is found to be unconstitutional, you must resign and call new elections” . . .? This would seem a sensible way to stem the tide of ever more absurd attempts by presidents to circumvent the constitutional separation of powers.
2. As a corollary, if you direct a cabinet official/agency head to ignore or disobey laws passed by congress, you must resign (or be impeached). I’m think things like:
   • Undeclared wars
   • Narcotics smuggling
   • IRS harassment of political opponents
   • Interfering with the DOJ or FBI during criminal investigations
3. - I rather like the idea of holding elections quickly – 60 or 90 days. Are we any better off after 12 months of the Hillary and Trump show? Hundreds of millions have been spent, and regular TV programming has been pre-empted. And nothing was settled.
4. All senators and house members need to stand for re-election if the president commits any of the aforementioned illegal acts. This is a good time to reassess whether the current congressional majorities were complicit in our misery,

Please add your thoughts – worth a constitutional amendment, or hidden pitfalls to this?

I am not sure about switching to a parliamentary system when it comes to the chief executive but I have often thought a President should serve one 6 year term and be done.

No need to campaign or raise money during the third and fourth year just....doing the job of President with all checks and balances still in place........

Just sayin.....