# Governor-for-life? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 23, 2006, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governor-for-life/377523 "2006-10-23T02:59:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2006, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governor-for-life/377523/21 "2006-10-23T22:42:36Z")
[QUOTE=Giles] The Legislative Council of Queensland voted itself out of existence in 1922. And at least one legislature/parliament has peacefully voted itself out of existence: the Parliament of Scotland in 1707. [/QUOTE] As also did the [Legislative Council of New Zealand.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Legislative_Council) It was the former upper house of Parliament and voted to abolish itself in 1950. As the Legislative Council wasn’t an elected chamber, the NZ government was able to do what the Queensland government had done in 1922: > [@](#): > > In 1950, the National Party, now in government, passed the Legislative Council Abolition Act. To assist its passage into law, Holland appointed twenty members known as the ‘suicide squad’, to vote for their own abolition, just as the Australian state of Queensland had done to abolish its upper house in 1922. ---
**Author:** ![633squadron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/ee59a6/32.png) [@633squadron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/633squadron)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2006, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governor-for-life/377523/22 "2006-10-24T03:30:21Z")
[QUOTE=yabob] Actually, I’m not certain that the governor has to be elected at all. The key to “republican form of government” is that it is representative, which does not mean that you have to elect the executive, just the legislators. [/QUOTE] It’s key, and necessary, but probably wouldn’t be sufficient. If you can elect legislators, but the executive has more power than the legislature, you don’t really have a republic. Also, what about a system in which the state only legalizes one party? ---
**Author:** ![Neptunian\_Slug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce7236/32.png) [@Neptunian\_Slug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neptunian_Slug)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2006, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governor-for-life/377523/23 "2006-10-24T05:05:26Z")
[QUOTE=alphaboi867] According to that definition Sweden, Spain, and Japan are all republics. [/QUOTE] Its A definition, not necessarily THE definitive meaning. My point being that SCOTUS has more tools at its disposal than just the Constitution and that being various interpretations of what a republican government actually is. Here we are debating whether such an arrangement constitute ‘republican’ government. And there are many answers. [QUOTE=alphaboi867] So a voter’s rights are violated because they didn’t happen to be of age or live in said state when the election occured? Every citizen runs the chance of enduring a lifetime without the ability to vote for a certain government official. If lifetime terms aren’t constitutional how long could a term of office be be 10, 20, 50 years? And I never said there’d be now way to remove a governor from office. Impeachment would still be possible, maybe even some form of recall. At what point does republic end and elective monarchy begin? [/QUOTE] I have never asserted that it isn’t constitutional. I merely speculated on the possible rationale of the SCOTUS in overturning such a change to a state’s constitution. Where does every citizen risk a lifetime of not having a chance to vote for an official? Judges, as someone pointed out elsewhere, are a slightly different animal. Otherwise, I know of no state where you run the risk of a lifetime with no recourse against an executive officer of the government. As far as I know, there isn’t an office with a term of greater than four years (although someone can correct me if I am wrong) and four year olds can’t vote. Mind you, if the US Constitution were amended to allow a President for Life, then that would be aboslutely permissible as it would be the supreme law of the land. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2006, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governor-for-life/377523/24 "2006-10-24T11:42:36Z")
[QUOTE=Neptunian Slug] As far as I know, there isn’t an office with a term of greater than four years (although someone can correct me if I am wrong) and four year olds can’t vote. [/QUOTE] Senators serve six-year terms. ---
**Author:** ![Neptunian\_Slug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce7236/32.png) [@Neptunian\_Slug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neptunian_Slug)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2006, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governor-for-life/377523/25 "2006-10-24T16:56:15Z")
[QUOTE=Diceman] Senators serve six-year terms. [/QUOTE] Yes thanks. No governors serve a six year term, I was referring too the topic at hand. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2006, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governor-for-life/377523/26 "2006-10-25T16:05:07Z")
FWIW, the Librarian of Congress is appointed to an open-ended term, and he (someday she) doesn’t even have the “during good behavior” limitation of Art. III Federal judges. Of course, the Librarian also isn’t exactly in a position to exercise jackbooted, oppressive authority over anyone other than the LoC staff: [Jefferson's Legacy: A Brief History of the Library of Congress -- LIBRARIANS OF CONGRESS](http://www.loc.gov/loc/legacy/librs.html) I tend to agree that the Supreme Court would punt the issue back to Congress if a state established a governorship-for-life (even with initial election, and impeachment and/or recall safeguards). It’s a political question. But a governorship-for-life would be unprecedented in American history, and certainly does _feel_ like it’s violative of the Guaranty Clause. Would that be enough for Congress to take action? We just don’t know. It all depends on the politics of the day and whether the particular Governor-for-Life (are you applying, **alphaboi867**?) in question was seen by Congress as governing in an un-republican (note the lowercase “r”) manner. That said, a governorship-for-life is a really, really bad idea. I can only barely imagine a state’s citizens amending their constitution to authorize it, even in, say, Huey Long’s Louisiana. ---
**Author:** ![yabob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yabob/32/2821_2.png) [@yabob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yabob)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2006, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governor-for-life/377523/27 "2006-10-25T16:37:25Z")
[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir] … That said, a governorship-for-life is a really, really bad idea. I can only barely imagine a state’s citizens amending their constitution to authorize it, even in, say, Huey Long’s Louisiana. [/QUOTE] It would be interesting, though, to see one experiment with something modeled on a parliamentary republic where they had their legislature choose the chief executive. IMO, the criticisms of parliamentary democracy do not apply as heavily to states within a federal governement as they do to independant nations. I can’t see that happening, either. The states are pretty conservative about messing with their governmental forms. It would also seem very strange to see news items about the President meeting with “The Prime Minister of Texas” or something like that. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2006, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governor-for-life/377523/28 "2006-10-25T19:21:35Z")
[QUOTE=yabob] It would also seem very strange to see news items about the President meeting with “The Prime Minister of Texas” or something like that. [/QUOTE] It would probably seem at least as strange to read about the President of the United States meeting with the President of Texas. But in the early Republic, both New Hampshire and Pennsylvania styled their chief executives as “president.” (Texas also had a president when it was an independent nation, but changed the title to “governor” when it was admitted to statehood.) It’s why the U.S. Constitution always refers to the head of a state of the Union as the state’s “executive authority” or “executive,” never as a “governor.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/governor-for-life/377523.md?page=1)