# Do states HAVE to have governors? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 22, 2000, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289 "2000-11-22T15:03:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/41 "2012-10-15T22:58:11Z")
It would be rather awkward for the courts to argue that life terms were inconsistent with republican government, given that many of them, including the highest court in the land, serve life terms themselves. What’s sauce for the judicial branch is sauce for the gander. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/42 "2012-10-15T23:05:02Z")
A lifetime appointment for a judge is very different than one for an executive. ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/43 "2012-10-15T23:39:27Z")
> [@USCDiver](#): > > I read this before realizing this was a zombie, but since this is The Dope and all… The NC Governor was given veto powers in 1996. Also, the governor of North Carolina is a [woman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_North_Carolina) now. That was actually what alerted me to this being a zombie. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2012, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/44 "2012-10-16T00:06:34Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > A lifetime appointment for a judge is very different than one for an executive. What about lifetime appointment for a senator? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2012, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/45 "2012-10-16T01:21:00Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Damn you. 😛 Given the time period in question, you really should say “Damn your eyes, Sir!” 😛 ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2012, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/46 "2012-10-16T02:45:57Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Well, at the time the US Constitution was adopted, there was separation of powers in Britain, indeed separation specifically is something Montesique used to define the English and. British system of that time frame. Parliamentry democracy as we know it now is very much a product of the 19th century. You are quite mistaken, sir. Great Britain to this day does not have separation of powers. Parliament legislates, administers and adjudicates. All in the name of the Queen, who is the font of authority to do all those things. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2012, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/47 "2012-10-16T03:05:15Z")
> [@toadspittle](#): > > What about lifetime appointment for a senator? Did someone change the Constitution? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/48 "2012-10-16T15:26:09Z")
Separation of powers is not a necessary characteristic of a republic as the term is and has been used in the United States. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2012, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/49 "2012-10-16T15:50:43Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > Secretary of State for the Home Department (don’t know what this is equivalent to, but I could have sworn I heard this guy referred to as the Home Minister) Home Secretary is essentially a Minister of the Interior, with responsibility for police, immigration, internal security and the like. > [@](#): > > Lord Chancellor (who knows what this is) Essentially the Secretary of State for Justice. He was also until recently the head of the judiciary. > [@](#): > > Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster (who knows what this is) The Cabinet Office is the co-ordinating office for government activities - sort-of-but-not-quite like the White House Executive Office, but for the whole Cabinet rather than just the PM. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is a sinecure - i.e. there are no formal functions related to it (beyond being responsible for the Duchy of Lancaster to Parliament) - think of it as a minister without portfolio: can be given miscellaneous government tasks and through the office has a seat in Cabinet. > [@](#): > > That web page notes that the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms and the Minister for Transport aren’t actually members of the Cabinet, although they attend cabinet meetings. The Captain of the Honourable Corps of the Gentleman at Arms is the Government’s Chief Whip in the House of Lords; so he attends Cabinet meetings to learn what to enforce in the Upper House, but has no vote at such meetings. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2012, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/50 "2012-10-16T15:52:40Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > You are quite mistaken, sir. Great Britain to this day does not have separation of powers. Parliament legislates, administers and adjudicates. All in the name of the Queen, who is the font of authority to do all those things. [Actually no](http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-20-2-c-hobbes-locke-montesquieu-and-rousseau-on-government.html). > [@](#): > > Montesquieu viewed the English king as exercising executive power balanced by the law-making Parliament, which was itself divided into the House of Lords and the House of Commons, each checking the other. Then, the executive and legislative branches were still further balanced by an independent court system. There is no real separation of powers _today_. At that time there indeed was, Parliament had chopped a Kings head off to make that the case. The fact that the executive authority of the Government must have a majority in the House of Commons (and therefore practically control the legislature) is something which is a product of the 19th century, specifically Sir Robert Peel’s failed attempt to rule without such a majority in the 1830’s. Its a convention to this day in the United Kingdom (Great Britain as a nation state having been abolished in 1801). At that time it was not unknown for the executive not to control Parliament (and indeed William Pitt would lead a government without such a majority). There is nothing stopping the Queen from appointing some random Belfast tamp as P.M and he could quite properly exersize all the powers of the office without ever setting foot in Parliament. Not going to last long, but the point remains. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2012, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/51 "2012-10-16T15:56:31Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > You are quite mistaken, sir. Great Britain to this day does not have separation of powers. Parliament legislates, administers and adjudicates. All in the name of the Queen, who is the font of authority to do all those things. I can assure you that checks and balances do exist in the British system, but perhaps not in the same manner as in the US. Parliamentary Committees, especially, are extremely wary of breaching the separation of powers and trying to force a policy on the government - they strongly consider the government should have freedom here, and the House alone has the power to force a policy on them. Parliament and the judiciary are also strictly separated, and do their best to keep out of the way of each other. The Executive and the Legislature also divide powers between them. The situation is that the Government has an inherent advantage in legislation by virtue of its elected majority, but it is up to Parliament to inquire and scrutinise and pick holes in things to implore the government to improve its own work, and if necessary to compel it. So I would argue there is a separation of powers in the UK, but of a different nature but also to a different extent. It’s true there is an overlap of powers, a ‘fusion’ of powers, as it has been labelled - but to argue there is no separation of powers is haphazard. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/52 "2012-11-12T10:00:46Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > You are quite mistaken, sir. Great Britain to this day does not have separation of powers. Parliament legislates, administers and adjudicates. All in the name of the Queen, who is the font of authority to do all those things. Have to disagree, **DSYoungEsq**. 1. Parliament legislates on its own authority, not in the name of the Queen. The Queen is a component of the Parliament, but its legislative power is inherent in Parliament itself. Her Majesty has no independent legislative power, other than some remnants of the royal prerogative, and those remnants are always subject to being change or abolished by the Parliament. 2. Parliament does not adminster. That is the task of the executive, which is accountable to Parliament and must carry out its functions in accordance with laws passed by Parliament, but Parliament does not adminster government programs. 3. Parliament no longer has any judicial functions, following recent constitutional reforms which resulted in the House of Lords losing its role as the ultimate appellate body for most matters of domestic British law. Even before that change, the House of Lords did not exercise judicial functions as a delegate of Her Majesty, but as part of the inherent powers of Parliament - the “[High Court of Parliament](http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseoflords/judicialrole/overview/highcourtparliament/)”. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/53 "2012-11-12T11:10:40Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Have to disagree, **DSYoungEsq**. > 3. Parliament no longer has any judicial functions, following recent constitutional reforms which resulted in the House of Lords losing its role as the ultimate appellate body for most matters of domestic British law. Even before that change, the House of Lords did not exercise judicial functions as a delegate of Her Majesty, but as part of the inherent powers of Parliament - the “[High Court of Parliament](http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseoflords/judicialrole/overview/highcourtparliament/)”. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 which created the Supreme Court and ended the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords did not specifically abolish the inherent power of Parliament. There has been some academic opinion that an appeal by way of Petition could lie from a judgement of the Supreme Court to Parliament, although it is something that would never happen. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2012, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289/54 "2012-11-12T11:45:11Z")
Interesting - thanks for the clarification! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-states-have-to-have-governors/42289.md?page=2)