What do you think?
Rate this book
Two Presidents Are Better Than One: The Case for a Bipartisan Executive Branch
“Many Americans are unsatisfied with politics. Simultaneously, we are hesitant to question the basic soundness of our constitutional system. In this refreshingly provocative book, David Orentlicher explains why it is due time for us to reconsider dominant ideas about the presidency, now arguably our most powerful political institution. Challenging the conventional wisdom that the best executive is necessarily a unitary executive, Orentlicher makes a wonderful case for why ‘two presidents are better than one.’ Sure to be of interest to political scientists, legal scholars, as well as informed citizens justifiably worried about the fate of American democracy, this fascinating book dares to challenge everything you thought you knew about one of our favorite political institutions.”
—William E. Scheuerman, Indiana University
“Can Orentlicher be serious in calling for a plural executive? The answer is yes, and he presents thoughtful and challenging arguments responding to likely criticisms. Any readers who are other than completely complacent about the current state of American politics will have to admire Orentlicher’s distinctive audacity and to respond themselves to his well-argued points.”
—Sanford Levinson, author of "Framed: America’s 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance"
When talking heads and political pundits make their “What’s Wrong with America” lists, two concerns invariably rise to the top: the growing presidential abuse of power and the toxic political atmosphere in Washington. In Two Presidents Are Better Than One, David Orentlicher shows how the “imperial presidency” and partisan conflict are largely the result of a deeper problem—the Constitution’s placement of a single president atop the executive branch. Accordingly, writes Orentlicher, we can fix our broken political system by replacing the one person, one-party presidency with a two-person, two-party executive branch.
Orentlicher contends that our founding fathers did not anticipate the extent to which their checks and balances would fail to contain executive power and partisan discord. They also did not foresee how the imperial presidency would aggravate partisan conflict. As the stakes in presidential elections have grown ever higher since the New Deal, battles to capture the White House have greatly exacerbated partisan differences. Had the framers been able to predict the future, Orentlicher argues, they would have been far less enamored with the idea of a single leader at the head of the executive branch and far more receptive to the alternative proposals for a plural executive that they rejected. Like their counterparts in Europe, they might well have created an executive branch in which power is shared among multiple persons from multiple political parties.
Analyzing the histories of other countries with a plural executive branch and past examples of bipartisan cooperation within Congress, Orentlicher shows us why and how to implement a two-person, two-party presidency. Ultimately, Two Presidents Are Better Than One demonstrates why we need constitutional reform to rebalance power between the executive and legislative branches and contain partisan conflict in Washington.
David Orentlicher is Samuel R. Rosen Professor at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. A scholar of constitutional law and a former state representative, David also has taught at Princeton University and the University of Chicago Law School. He earned degrees in law and medicine at Harvard and specializes as well in health care law and ethics.
—William E. Scheuerman, Indiana University
“Can Orentlicher be serious in calling for a plural executive? The answer is yes, and he presents thoughtful and challenging arguments responding to likely criticisms. Any readers who are other than completely complacent about the current state of American politics will have to admire Orentlicher’s distinctive audacity and to respond themselves to his well-argued points.”
—Sanford Levinson, author of "Framed: America’s 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance"
When talking heads and political pundits make their “What’s Wrong with America” lists, two concerns invariably rise to the top: the growing presidential abuse of power and the toxic political atmosphere in Washington. In Two Presidents Are Better Than One, David Orentlicher shows how the “imperial presidency” and partisan conflict are largely the result of a deeper problem—the Constitution’s placement of a single president atop the executive branch. Accordingly, writes Orentlicher, we can fix our broken political system by replacing the one person, one-party presidency with a two-person, two-party executive branch.
Orentlicher contends that our founding fathers did not anticipate the extent to which their checks and balances would fail to contain executive power and partisan discord. They also did not foresee how the imperial presidency would aggravate partisan conflict. As the stakes in presidential elections have grown ever higher since the New Deal, battles to capture the White House have greatly exacerbated partisan differences. Had the framers been able to predict the future, Orentlicher argues, they would have been far less enamored with the idea of a single leader at the head of the executive branch and far more receptive to the alternative proposals for a plural executive that they rejected. Like their counterparts in Europe, they might well have created an executive branch in which power is shared among multiple persons from multiple political parties.
Analyzing the histories of other countries with a plural executive branch and past examples of bipartisan cooperation within Congress, Orentlicher shows us why and how to implement a two-person, two-party presidency. Ultimately, Two Presidents Are Better Than One demonstrates why we need constitutional reform to rebalance power between the executive and legislative branches and contain partisan conflict in Washington.
David Orentlicher is Samuel R. Rosen Professor at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. A scholar of constitutional law and a former state representative, David also has taught at Princeton University and the University of Chicago Law School. He earned degrees in law and medicine at Harvard and specializes as well in health care law and ethics.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published March 11, 2013
20 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 20, 2013
The book was has an interesting view. It obviously promotes the plural executive concept. This is not a new concept although I have never seen other books that cover it as this one.
I must admit, it was an interesting read. The book covers the idea that two presidents would be better since the idea is to have two presidents from two parties. The book is extremely thought out and well written.
However my opinion is as follows: Our current system was designed in a way that keeps the government in check. It has not worked not because of the design but the way we the people have allowed the courts to legislate from the bench and the Constitution to be usurpted with organization such as the EPA that were designed in a way that is outside the reach of the President and are not held responsible. These organization should not operate outside the reach of Congress and the President. I believe that if we fix the outrageous interpretation of the Constitution and remove the power from the 3 branches as well as forbid them from setting up autonomous systems that is outside of public scrutiny and approach, the system would go back to its working order. This is the way to do this.
1. Change "We the People" in the preamble to "We the States"
2. Change Article VIII "To regulate Commerce among the several States"
should be changed to "To keep commerce regular..."
3. The 10th should the word "Expressly"
4. Repeal 16th Amendment
5. Repeal 17th Amendment
I must admit, it was an interesting read. The book covers the idea that two presidents would be better since the idea is to have two presidents from two parties. The book is extremely thought out and well written.
However my opinion is as follows: Our current system was designed in a way that keeps the government in check. It has not worked not because of the design but the way we the people have allowed the courts to legislate from the bench and the Constitution to be usurpted with organization such as the EPA that were designed in a way that is outside the reach of the President and are not held responsible. These organization should not operate outside the reach of Congress and the President. I believe that if we fix the outrageous interpretation of the Constitution and remove the power from the 3 branches as well as forbid them from setting up autonomous systems that is outside of public scrutiny and approach, the system would go back to its working order. This is the way to do this.
1. Change "We the People" in the preamble to "We the States"
2. Change Article VIII "To regulate Commerce among the several States"
should be changed to "To keep commerce regular..."
3. The 10th should the word "Expressly"
4. Repeal 16th Amendment
5. Repeal 17th Amendment
September 11, 2013
The author promotes an interesting theory that our government would work more effectively with two presidents (the winner and 2nd place finisher) rather than one. Unfortunately, I completely disagree with this opinion. I think things would be MUCH WORSE in this scenario.
September 9, 2013
Interesting, but not a convincing argument. Now to write the review for Choice Magazine.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews