Do you really think that once someone is in power that they couldn't just ignore that limitation? As I said, they have that power now. I think you're being un

Do you really think that once someone is in power that they couldn't just ignore that limitation? As I said, they have that power now. I think you're being unfair. You presume - rightly, I believe - that the military would likely not obey an order to take over congress today. But why would they suddenly break all the rules once my proposed system was put in place? There would be very clear rules in place as to how long this super-presidency would be allowed to last. The military then would presumably be just as inclined to follow them then as now. Congress doesn't have any power other than that ascribed it in the law, otherwise they're just a bunch of old men. The president has no power in law to take away that power now and would have no power to expand his own tenancy in my proposed system. The military, courts, etc, would presumably obey the law in either respect. Anyway, I admit what I said was a bit extreme. How about a compromise - today's system, but with the congress relegated to "advisor" status? In other words, today's system, but with the president able to force through any bill he really wanted? Wouldn't that be interesting? Maybe we should take the more Libertarian route and give power back to the state governments with a severely neutered federal government I have a lot of sympathy for this idea too. I would like to see meaningful competition between the states with the federal govt just providing a kind of basic national infrastructure. I feel this benefit of the state system has been lost with creeping purview of the fed. And your example of a 'democracy' isn't really a democracy, it's a republic Actually, that's a US-only use of the word. The rest of the world would call the USA a representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy.