And if the president's party blocks action on the bill via one method or the other and it automatically becomes law?
I really do mean no offense, but this is a terrible idea. Presidents would be using it to screw with the opposition party come election time like you wouldn't believe. I would rather the minority party in Congress be given more power to force votes and more rules that force Congress to act in certain circumstances to prevent things like year-long SCOTUS nomination blockades or to prevent power from becoming too centralized (like it is now)
I've been considering if a parliamentary system is better. This seems like a good compromise.
And the President's party could only block a veto on the bill if they had a simple majority who voted to NOT veto it.
Well, not exactly. I agree with the idea that giving power to the president to push legislation could help alleviate some forms of obstruction and gridlock, it's only 1 approach to solving the gridlock issue. It's an approach I do not favor. I favor mitigating the ability to obstruct using changes to the way
Congress operates, and not by introducing a new legislative vector.
I actually like your idea to some degree, but not the auto-enactment if not veto'd by Congress. If I
had to choose some variation of this idea, it would something along the lines of POTUS being able to introduce a bill to Congress if he can get 1/3rd of each chamber to side with him, and by doing this, forcing Congress to vote on the bill with no ability to filibuster. No auto-enactment, but also gives another method to bypass obstructionist methods. Requiring substantial Congressional support means the president can't as easily screw around for partisan purposes. So POTUS + 1/3rd Congress to introduce, then simple majority to pass.
It's a fun thought exercise, but changes to the way legislating works in Congress outside of maybe filibuster reform is almost a fantasy at this current point in time.
