| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| A Theoretical Constitutional Question | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 26 2006, 03:55 PM (115 Views) | |
| Rick Zimmer | Jan 26 2006, 03:55 PM Post #1 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I was listening to one of the local NPR stations a couple of weeks ago and the guest was bemoaning the what he saw as a stand-off in California between the Republican Governor and the Democratic Legislature. He pointed out that the spilt government is more-or-less a standard in California (which it is) and he felt it kept the State from being able to accomplish anything significant. He suggested that California would be better governed under a parliamentary form of government. Leaving aside comments on his opinion, this got me to thinking. Could California (or any state) establish a parliamentary form of government, or do the states need to maintain the federal separation of powers in their own governmental structure? Would such a change be allowed? Would Congress (which approves a state's Constitution when it first joins the Union) need to approve it or is the state completely free in this regard? Obviously, Federal Constitutional guarantees (such as one man/one vote) must be maintained. But is a State free to establish a different form of government from the Federal model? |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jan 26 2006, 04:03 PM Post #2 |
|
Finally
|
Obviously the state constitution would have to be rewritten - not a small task. That means the pols would have to agree...etc. However, doesn't a state have the right to do that? If I recall correctly, there are some state legislatures that are not bicameral. Why should a parliamentary form be any different, at least conceptually? I don't believe that the US congress has the authority to dictate how individual states (in the "nation" sense of the word) govern themselves. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| FrankM | Jan 26 2006, 04:58 PM Post #3 |
|
Senior Carp
|
It would seem to be a reserved right. Some advantages (?) of a parliamentary system: - more accountable, since power is not divided. - easier to pass legislation within a parliamentary system. - less prone to authoritarian collapse. Some disadvantages (?) of a parliamentary system: - the head of government cannot be directly voted for by the people. - little scope to administer checks or balances on the executive. - sometimes unstable (confidence voting) BTW, I think Nebraska is unicameral |
![]() |
|
| George K | Jan 26 2006, 05:02 PM Post #4 |
|
Finally
|
Just looked, Frank. Nebraska is the only unicameral legislature. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |






6:43 AM Jul 11