Alright, with a nice healthy break after the legislative changes, it's time to get on to the executive.
The office of president is, or at least WAS, supposed to be an office of limited power domestically. But two presidents, Lincoln and FDR, fundamentally changed that. It couldn't be helped I suppose. Both came about in times of extraordinary crisis and turmoil. And it's typical of people to want to rally behind a strong decisive and autocratic leader during those times. I could speculate that it goes back to our tribal days, but since I'm not an anthropologist, I can't say with any certainty. What I can say though is that power, once given, is very difficult to take away.
Today we have a presidency that is often termed as the most powerful position in the world. There is a great degree of truth in that. Our president has, theoretically, the power to destroy the entire planet. But on a much more practical level the president, and the offices under the president, have the power to do all of the following things;
Kill American citizens without trial
Kill non-American citizens by remote control
Indefinitely detain both American citizens and non-Americans without trial or appeal
Enter your home without warrant
Trace/tap your phones without warrant
Frame you for crimes without fear of punishment
There are far more exercises of power that the president has, but these are some of the most egregious violations. Congress isn't absolved from blame in these instance either, as many times Congress has abdicated its own power to that of the executive. Declarations of war and the non-defensive use of military force is a power reserved for Congress alone and yet so often do presidents ignore the Congress that it doesn't even illicit a response.
Bearing all this in mind, what I propose doesn't seem that radical. In fact it may be rather benign after the shock of such an idea wears off. But I propose it none the less; Instead of one president we should have two. Equal in nearly all power (with one exception I'll get to in a minute). The office of vice president was supposed to fill this slot by being the runner up in the presidential elections. Of course it then changed to allow the president to choose his or her own running mate. The office of vice president was supposed to be a check on presidential power, to force the executive to cooperate on issues. So in that sense I am simply reviving an old idea.
Of course those who are familiar with Roman history know this sounds exactly like the consulships of the republican era, and to a great degree that's intended. No one man should have the degree of power our current presidents do. By limiting both the powers of office and the ability of one man to abuse those powers with a equal who is of different political insight, we can therefore reduce the power of the president and return it where it belongs; to the legislature.
There are practical considerations for this change as well. For example, with twice as many chief executives, twice as many tasks can be accomplished in same amount of time. Half as likely for an assassination to be devastating to our government.
Now, for practical purposes, there would not be two presidents elected at the same time. Our presidential elections would take place every 4 years like normal, but each person elected would serve a term of 8 years. 4 years as the junior, and 4 years as the senior.
Now the next limitation shouldn't be a surprise, given that I am a huge opponent of the two party system. The candidates submitted each year CANNOT be from the same party as the senior president. This will keep one party from being dominant in the executive branch. And because it will obviously require at least two candidates (who cannot be from the same party), this will encourage the growth of other parties, or the destruction of the party system for executives completely. Already Representatives from the HoR would not likely make it to the office of president, as they were elected by lottery. Senators would only be eligible if they had not served their allotment of terms. This increases the pool of individuals to pick a president from, allowing for greater democracy.
"But what of the Cabinet?" Well, aside from the offices I'd eliminate (more on those later), the cabinet would be nominated by the senior president, who will have had experience prior with members of the previous senior cabinet. This will give the new senior president good insight into both compromise and cooperation, and help them determine the characteristics that are best suited to cabinet members. The people would, hopefully, choose a president that can accomplish the goals the public wants while at the same time working and compromising with the current establishment. In short it makes change slower and more deliberate, allowing reason, evidence, and logic to cool emotions, and hopefully force the voting masses to be more deliberate and thoughtful when they cast their ballot.
As far as powers of office being divided, the presidents could block each other via vetos, though only one signature would be required for a law to pass. Other nominations for non-cabinet positions would be handled the same way, where both presidents would select candidates and the legislature would confirm or deny them as they do now. The use of military force beyond our own national borders, would require explicit orders from both presidents in order to be constitutionally valid. Presidents would not be able to testify against one another in impeachment cases, save for cases of treason.
So to wrap this up, we would have two presidents. Every 4 years we would elect 1 for a single 8 year term. After the 1st 4 years, the sitting president would move from junior to senior. With the exception of cabinet appointments, both presidents would be equal in power and responsibility. Neither of the presidents would be of the same party affiliation. Beyond this, and the requirement for natural born citizenship, there would be no other qualification to run for the office.
