Executive power shall be...

Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have now formally entered the presidential 2016 sweepstakes, joining a small platoon -- if not battalion -- of contenders on both sides of the aisle that likely will grow.

During the next sixteen months, voters will be overwhelmed by the propaganda and spin emanating from this expanse of campaigns. Indeed, public debates on the Republican side may not find stages large enough to accommodate all the rivals, whether or not the numbers are weaned to the low double digits.

If the Republican nominating process of 2012 was a spectacle, this race may set an even lower bar in deciding who will ultimately run for the nation's highest elective office. And the chance of serious debate as opposed to a media circus orchestrated by moderators -- susceptible to making the show about them and their questions, not the answers -- becomes moot. Is there any way to overcome these obstacles in selecting and then electing the fittest candidate for the presidency?

We could start by soliciting written answers to key questions as a first step since, on the Republican side, not all the candidates will pass the cut for the televised debate. These questions should focus on the nature of the presidency: the responsibilities, leading and managing the nation, and why each particular candidate is prepared for the job, rather than an issue by issue quiz likely to be answered by sound bites. Written answers also tend to discipline responses and are tougher to correct than verbal miscues.

Three sets of key questions should form the basis for these questions. The first should begin with the first line of Article II of the Constitution, "The executive power shall be vested in the President of the United States."

Candidates need to be asked what that means; how executive power will be wielded in carrying out the duties of the office; in leading and managing the Executive Branch and the cabinet; in dealing with Congress and the many contradictions or ambiguities in the Constitution between the two branches; and as commander-in-chief?

Second, candidates must respond as to why each believes him or herself qualified for the presidency in terms of criteria such as character, judgment and experience that make a person the most able and electable of the contenders from both parties.

Third, candidates must list their top one or two priorities regarding domestic and international policies and their policy and strategy for implementing them.

Of course, the irrational rule of American politics will make this exercise a non-starter. Candidates do not wish to make explicit statements in writing that can be seen as more binding and serious than word of mouth. As members of Congress almost never read or fully understand the legislation on which they vote, candidates for the presidency will see written assignments as too onerous and politically dangerous to contemplate. Some will even demean and deride the idea as "high schoolish" or College Boards for the presidency. And candidates will complain that this will produce an avalanche of questions that will overwhelm the campaign.

Yet important transactions, from getting married to writing wills to contracts for employment and buying homes, are done in writing.

So why not bring the standards of every day life to electing the nation's chief executive officer? Obviously, both parties would prefer to administer crib death to this idea. Hence, "how would this be done" and "who would draft the questions" are critical as the most likely response by the candidates would be "no comment."

One possibility is for a third tier candidate to call for written responses as a way of shaking up the race, embarrassing his rivals to respond and creating clear differences with rivals. Another is for the media to coalesce and make similar requests. And this applies to both parties especially since Hillary must be considered not only the front-runner but unless she stumbles badly or is mortally wounded by some scandal, the likely nominee.

Actually, the questions noted above are straight forward; non-partisan; and objective. And there are any organizations that could endorse them.

Will this happen? Almost certainly not. Should it? Absolutely!

__________________________________________________________________