Quote Originally Posted by red state View Post
I'd like more time to consider this for a final answer but for now, I'd like to go back to our founding when they were establishing the balance of power. I'd say that ONE man in power to balance the power is too much power for one man.............I believe the power of president would best serve WE THE PEOPLE if the people's governors were the balance of power. Of course, back then, distance was a problem but it isn't now. I may simply be tired but it seems that even the founders got away from States preserving their rights and freedom over a possible tyrannical federal gov. I believe I'll hit the hay now and sleep on the idea. Good thread, Perianne. I look forward to other folk's two cents/sense.

We do have a balance of power, we have three branches, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. That system has served us well for over 200 years. Right now we are experiencing a breakdown of communication. The president refuses to allow the government to function as it was designed.
The states are represented at two levels, Representatives in the House based on population and two Senators from each state. I'm not sure I like the way the Supreme Court is appointed. I agree they should serve for life, or they choose to retire, but presidents will always appoint a justice whose record reflects his political views. That can build a court that can be too partisan.