I've thought for some time that a Commonwealth-style question time would be an excellent addition to American politics, but the President is not the one who should be taking the questions. In the House of Commons, the MPs are questioning one of their own, the Prime Minister, who is a member of the legislature, not the executive. The best parallel would be a question time for the Speaker of the House or Majority Leader, who are the #1 and #2 members of the legislature under the American system.

You're lame.

Under the British parliamentary system, the Prime Minister isn't the head of state, he's the head of government. The British head of state is the queen. Under the US system, the head of state and head of government are combined into the office of the president. The Speaker of the House does not have nearly the kind of power that the British Prime MInister wields, so questioning her would not make a fraction of the impact that questioning the president would.

And the President, in turn, has much more power than the PM, who is elected by his fellow members ofthe House of Commons and can be forced by them to run for re-election.

You're right, but the President's power is what makes the idea unworkable. The Prime Minister must perform well at Question time because if he does not maintain the confidence of the House of Commons, he loses is job. The President, on the other hand, could tell the House of Representatives to go to hell, and be in no such danger. The Speaker (in the US, that is) is a lot closer to the PM than the President is.

That is true. The closest thing we have to a no confidence vote is impeachment, and that's reserved for actual high crimes and misdemeanors, not just incompetence.

But after this administration, maybe we should amend the Constitution to include incompetence.