Where a parliamentary system of government obviously comes into the picture is because the United Kingdom, which has a parliamentary system of government, has a question-and-answer period.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc anybody? Good Lord.

when you can find me a Congress that can actually accomplish something more than a largely irrelevant minimum wage bill over the course of six months

Or than nothing but pure obstructionism, and exhibit nothing but denial when it comes to saving Social Security…

The purpose of Question Time is to give the opposition an institutionalized voice.

While he wanted to see the President and Congress be controlled at any time by the same party (he was in favor of party government, even having parties decide who would be seated in Congress), Charles M. Hardin wanted to see the other party (Tweedledumb or Tweedledumber, the GOP and the Dems) be constituted formally as an “opposition,” with its own leader (the losing candidate for the presidency) and agenda and time available for appealing to the people as well. (This would make official, for example, the currently unofficial practice of the “other” party making speeches after the president makes a speech on the public airwaves.)

I don’t see why it’s inherently so, or even inherently parliamentary.

That’s because you neglect the real world for politics and yourself time after time. Where a parliamentary system of government obviously comes into the picture is because the United Kingdom, which has a parliamentary system of government, has a question-and-answer period.

What about our system would stand in objection to a question period?

The President is not required to do this in the Constitution, so he or she need never do it. There is no reason when seeking advice and consent from Congress on this or that action that the President cannot seek or subject himself or herself to questioning.

And of course in the real world there is such a thing as a “press conference.” Now, the media are far from blameless when it comes to how badly press conferences often go, but in Bush’s case, press conferences are something else altogether because of Bush’s inarticulate and otherwise “challenged” nature.

I’m not sure what DLS means when he says “wrongly” when referring to our imperial president’s over-reaching powers,

Means what it says, says what it means — it is self-explanatory. We didn’t have an “imperial” president before, don’t have one now — liberals have misused this word numerous times simply because they don’t like the person and party holding the Presidency at a given moment. Antagonistic to and defiant of Congress? Yes. Imperial? Of course not.

but I’d just like to see Bush have to answer questions just from a Leno/Letterman point of view.

Do you mean it might even be more refreshing to have him answer questions without its being painful to hear?

Related story: Once upon a time in St. Louis, on the radio I heard a Bush press conference. It was painful to hear. Immediately after the conference was a commercial. It was for a frequently advertised vocabulary building product. “You are judged by the words you use … what you say, how you say it …” I laughed so hard I cried. The end.

I also suspect I got the idea from the same general experiences David did.

CO: “I’ll reconsider letting them take up the issue of refining the Constitution to allow for mandated ‘press conferences’.”

That’s why I like Jason’s ideas in post #7. I do feel having the President questioned is a good idea. No, not just this President, but all future ones too.

This could reopen true debate that for too long has been done by surrogates and scripted “Press Conferences”.

How about this deal…..when you can find me a Congress that can actually accomplish something more than a largely irrelevant minimum wage bill over the course of six months, I’ll reconsider letting them take up the issue of refining the Constitution to allow for mandated “press conferences”.

Of course, as soon as you announce your desire for your amendment, realize others will immediately want amendments for ERA, religious rights, abortion, balanced budgets, flag-burning, tax limitations, Arnold for President, etc.

At the present rate of legislative accomplishment, we should have you good to go by about 2025.

I doubt that Bush would have had the gall to say that Gonzales still has his full confidence, if he knew that he might be in for a bruising fight with the opposition.

The purpose of Question Time is to give the opposition an institutionalized voice. As House and to a lesser degree Senate rules have become more restrictive in the last few decades, the opposition has very little voice in the U.S. unless they control at least one of these legislative houses. The media was once thought to perform a similar function, but has in the last few decades become too thoroughly ideological and sensationalist to be consistently capable of it now.

Yes I’ll admit it, the mere thought of “hooked on phonics” Bush having to answer questions from people not previously screened to be nice to him makes me smile. Still, I think that for any president, both good and bad, smart and stupid, democrat or republican, being forced to defend your stands on issues for real would be a healthy exercise.

It would be absolutely hilarious to see this tongue-tied and less-than-erudite gaffe king have to answer unscripted questions while congressmen yell at him.
Just the thought is a smile maker.

Is it merely because you are liberal-to-radical, or are a Bush-hater, or may be among those who wrongly say the President is “too powerful,” “imperial,” etc. and “needs” [sic]additional checks by Congress, or is it because you like this specific mechanism or more broadly, you are interested in the parliamentary system of government?

Is it merely current politics, or a deeper interest?

After Watergate, when liberals were horrified by Nixon, there were all kinds of reforms suggested, including those by Charles M. Hardin, who wanted party government (yeech), institutionalizing the two major parties, and development of an “opposition” as well as a “government.” Many others have been advocates of a parliamentary system of government in this country. (One example is “A New Constitution Now” by Henry Hazlitt.)