Are there too many "checks and balances" in the US political system?

[politicallefty]

Yes. I wouldn't remove all checks between the legislative and executive branches, but I'd at least remove one. Ideally, I'd prefer the US adopt a parliamentary system with the executive drawn from and accountable to the House. That would leave the Senate as it is. Or, less preferably, the Senate is abolished, leaving the House and Presidency as they are.

Just imagine the kind of damage the Gingrich revolution or the Tea Party could do if the political agenda was determined by them in the House, and the only thing stopping them was Harry Reid and a handful of Blue Dog Democrats.

I don't think that's such a bad thing. Someone like Gingrich may not have come to power if the US were under a parliamentary system. If he did, he would have ultimately been held accountable for his actions. It's one thing to hold a position, but it's quite another to actually enact it.

[politicallefty]

I think you are sensing a fundamental outcome of the American Revolution. A major point of contention was the top-down control and ease by which regulations could be imposed on the colonies by British government. Their constitutional solution was a diffusion of power with significant checks on power exerted from any one branch.

I don't think the original constitutional setup was all that different from the British system at the time. The House of Representatives is and remains analogous to the House of Commons. The Senate was effectively a more republican version of the House of Lords. And I think the original intent of the presidential veto was to be an extraordinary check on Congress, just as withholding Royal Assent had become a rarity in the UK. The difference between the US and the UK over the years has been that the US has been restrained by the written word, while the UK has been free to evolve its system. (That's also not to mention the difference between the federal system in the US versus the unitary system in the UK.)

[politicallefty]

So many people have said that there are too many checks/balances on the legislative branch, but no one in this thread has brought up a specific one they would get rid of. Are you guys advocating getting rid of the presidential veto?

I'd prefer a parliamentary system, so that'd obviously entail a stronger legislative branch. Ideally, yes, there would be no executive veto over the legislature. I would prefer an executive that has accountability to the legislature.

[politicallefty]

I'm not opposed to the presidential pardon power as a whole, but I do think there needs to be some form of check on it. Both sides have used it for good, but both sides have abused it as well. A possible check could be something like a Congressional veto, where a majority vote in each House could veto a pardon. In such a case, Congress would have a certain amount of time to issue a veto. If Congress did not act within that time frame, the pardon would go into effect.

[politicallefty]

That's one thing I like very much.  Jesus, Buddha, the Navajo, even Ralph Fiennes' character Obersturmführer Amon Goeth from Schindler's List, were all into forgiveness.  It's a decent thing to do, and it represents the antithesis of the arrogance usually displayed by politicians.  We're not a very forgiving people, we Americans, and it shows in ugly ways--even the beautiful word "amnesty" has been turned in to a negatively-charged emotional term by our politicans--but every executive has the chance to leave office with a bit of Gandhi in him.  To pardon folks like Richard Nixon or Roger Clinton or Pol Pot is a decent thing to do.  Even the Tutsi and Hutu peoples are now expected to live with one another.  If Rwandan women (who were raped in front of their children after their husbands and fathers were brutally murdered with sticks and bayonets) have it in them to forgive us our trespasses, then we might be able to find it within ourselves to forgive those who trespass against us.

I don't disagree with you. However, I think there should be some check on what is currently an absolute executive power. There are many instances where the President does the right thing with respect to overall morality and forgiveness. However, there are also instances where executive clemency has only been granted due to political circumstances. I already mentioned a possible Congressional check above, which is one that gives the President the benefit of the doubt.