But **Pjen **didn’t specify that.
You didn’t answer my question, which I think is pertinent-- what is the maximum term limit allowed by the constitution?
A governor elected to a life term could still be subject to impeachment or recall. There’s no Constitutional limit on term length or term limits for state governors.
Surely that must depend on what powers are granted the chief/head according to the state constitution, though. If the people of Tennessee elect you Lord High Poobah-for-life, which office you will hold until the day you die, and nobody has the legal power to remove you from, which office entitles you to live in the Big Orange House up the road, does not require you to sign bills of the state legislature into law or to appoint officers to any state executive or legislature etecera… then the people of Tennessee have surrendered lease on a house to you, and jack-all else.
I believe the Supreme Court has never ruled on what a “Republican Form of Government” means in article 4, section 4. If a state changed its election rules to elect the governor for life (or 50 years), there surely would be a lawsuit, but it’s not even sure the Supreme Court would even hear it (it being a political question).
At least, that’s my understanding.
Yes she was. Elective monarchy. She’s even given as an example, but there are also real-life examples mentioned in the article.
He certainly cannot be recalled by the people, but no, he isn’t (officially) a monarch. Crowned republic, and he’s given as an example there (along with historical examples).
Really, the only real definition we have of “monarchy” is a country where the head of state is a king, queen, prince, grand-duke or other “monarchical” title, and the only real definition we have of “republic” is all other countries. There really isn’t a dividing line between both types of governments.
Here’s a thread on possible forms of state government from a few years back.
In a manner of speaking, they have, in Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849):
It is, in other words, the decision of the Supreme Court that the question is non-justicible.
While I still think the term republic is meaningless if we call North Korea one, and that a queen who is elected to a specific term, cannot be re-elected, and has to have the consent of her legislature for major policy initiatives is just a resident with a nostalgic name, y’all have convinced me that the the weight of evidence is against me, and thus I will concede that I was wrong.
The correct name is Kim Jong Il (김정일) and that individual is not called the president of the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea. That “honor”’ goes to his deceased father, the Eternal President.
Kim Jong Il is the General Secretary of the Worker’s Party of Korea and Chairman of the National Defense Commission. It is the latter is that is considered to be the highest political office that can be held by a living person in North Korea.
You cannot say that Canada lacks a republican form of government just because it has a monarch. She (or her personal representative) could in principle veto an act of parliament, but the result would be rioting in the streets.
Well, yeah, you certainly can. That’s the whole definition of a “republican form of government”. Canada is a democracy, to be sure, but it’s not a republic.