Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
A Theoretical Constitutional Question
Topic Started: Jan 26 2006, 03:55 PM (115 Views)
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
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]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
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
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Rick Zimmer
Jan 26 2006, 06:55 PM
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?

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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
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
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply