Is Stupid?

Rome, in late antiquity, got too large for one ruler and split East/West. If one might suggest that the US Presidency has gotten too large for one guy … how to split? Grant that you’ve gone to the point of thinking splitting is a necessity. So, do you split by region or Foreign/Domestic? What do you think? And why/why not consider such a thing (besides that changing the Constitution is enormously difficult)?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 comments

  1. Boonton says:

    It seems the most sensible way to ‘split’ it would be by delegation…which is what you have with the Executive Branch.

  2. Mark says:

    Boonton
    I don’t know what you mean by the phrase “by delegation” (do you mean separation of powers).

    My point is one executive isn’t up to it, just like in Roman times. They split to two executives.

    So if we were to have two co-equal but separate executives, how would you split their responsibilities?

  3. Boonton says:

    The President doesn’t prosecute cases, his Attorney General does via the Justice Dept. The military is run by generals who report to the President. Not quite the same as separation of powers as these centers of power are *under* the President.

    Not sure why that model wouldn’t simple be scaled up ad infinitim (even President of the Galaxy if you want to venture far into the future!). Dueling Executives sounds to me like a surefire way to trash the synergy you get from a unified executive without much payoff. Anything you gain in breaking the job up into smaller units would get lost in attempts by one to encroach on the other (i.e. ‘domestic President’ infringing on ‘foreign policy President’ by refusing to fund a military buildup).