A constitutional amendment to give President a little more legislative power

[Blue3]

Right now, the President has a little legislative power: he/she has time to veto a bill before it becomes a law. (Which Congress could override with a supermajority). Yes, the President can also issue executive orders and stuff like that... but that's only based on either the President's constitutional responsibilities, or based on powers that Congress gave the President and could take away if it wanted to.

But what if we gave the President just a bit more legislative power, while still keeping a system of checks and balances?

What if the President could propose a legislative bill... and then Congress could pass a "congressional veto," by a simple 50%+1 majority in both House/Senate? And if Congress doesn't veto it, then it becomes law after the same period of time as when Congress is waiting for a President to veto or sign a bill.

That way the President could force Congress to actually take a stand and vote on an issue... and some things that would pass if there was a vote, but Congress never brings up for petty reasons, would actually get done. It wouldn't end gridlock, it wouldn't give the President dictatorial powers or anything, but it would grease the wheels and allow government to function a little better and force a vote on more matters.

[Blue3]

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)

What you're really asking for is more centralization. That's what would make those things happen.

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.

[Blue3]

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)

What you're really asking for is more centralization. That's what would make those things happen.

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.

Thanks for the input! These are the kinds of comments I hope for when I make threads like these