Whoops. Number 10 is actually usually attributed to Madison, not Hamilton, just like Number 39.
I was just about to say …
None of this rules out a parliamentary democracy. The rules you derived apply equally to a parliamentary democracy (directly or indirectly chosen by the people) as they do to the current U.S. federal system.
And you’re taking an advocacy document and treating it as definitional. The Constitution did not adopt every idea in the Federalist papers—the Federalist authors did not win all the arguments at the Constitutional Convention.
I’m not entirely sure how to reply to you.
I never said any of this rules out a parliamentary democracy.
What I initially said was that my hazy memory of the Federalist Papers was that they made a big deal out of separating the legislative and executive powers in a republic, which would seem to argue against a Chief Executive selected from and responsible to the Legislature.
I then went and actually looked at the Federalist Papers. My two most recent posts were direct quotes from them on what a “republic” is. I didn’t even mention parliamentary democracy in those posts much less argue that those quotes ruled it out.
I think there actually is a roundabout argument in those quotes against a parliamentary form of government, but it’s very roundabout and quite weak, which is why I didn’t bring it up in those posts.
And your statement that I’m treating the Federalist Papers as definitional is simply bizarre. Let me quote myself,
I genuinely don’t understand the argument you’re trying to have with me.
Let me try to be clear, since apparently I’m having enormous difficulty in communicating with you.
I DON’T THINK THE FEDERALIST PAPERS ARE DEFINITIVE. I think they are the best available source we have for understanding what the Framers meant by a “republican form of government”, but if you’ve got better or just different sources, please share them.
I DON’T HAVE A STRONG ARGUMENT AGAINST PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT BEING A “REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT”. I suspect, from what I’ve read in the Federalist Papers and accounts of the Constitutional Convention, that a strong separation of the legislative and executive powers is part of what the Framers had in mind as “a republican form of government”, but I don’t have strong evidence for that, and I’m not arguing for it.
Do you have any thoughts yourself on what “a republican form of government” means?
It’s the other way around - it’s in the best interests of the government of the day to go earlier, when the polls look good for them, which encourages elections earlier than every five years. As md_2000 says, if a government is hanging on to the bitter end, it normally means they’re in trouble and will probably lose the election, often massively.
A system that is not a monarchy with popular elections involved in some manner to choose the government, directly or indirectly. Beyond that it could be anything.
A republican form of government probably comes as close as anything as guaranteeing democracy in some form, but just how democratic we have to be is up for debate.
But there can be different types of presidential elections in parliamentary republics. For example, the president of Ireland is directly elected by the people, but the presidents of Germany and India are elected by conventions composed of the members of the federal parliament and representatives of the state governments.
As I said, no authority whatsoever just a gut feeling. First, it must be republican in form, not in substance. So take Canada and the UK. They are certainly a rule by the people and first world democracies in every sense, but having a monarch at the head, even if it is just titular goes against the idea of a republic. Even if they are republican in substance, they are not in form. The monarch still must assent to every law, even though such assent is never withheld.
With the history of our founding, I don’t think we would consider a monarch, who rules by divine right and is hereditary, even if all of its powers were de facto null, would constitute republican in form as the form means that we have to show allegiance to that individual.
There is also no separation of powers as the executive is part of the legislative branch in a parliamentary system, and such separation has been considered essential in every state government since before the founding.
It’s not something I would argue in court without far more research, but it just doesn’t feeeel like a republic.
It wasn’t so much that the eastern counties were denied representation so much as they refused to acknowledge this rag tag bunch in Wheeling as anything but traitors against the Commonwealth of Virginia. The “real” government of Virginia had seceded from the United States and was part of the Confederate States of America. In modern terms these yo yos in Wheeling might as well have been a group of sovereign citizens holding their own meetings in their mothers’ basements making up stuff.
But it turned out that the case of Grant v. Lee (Appomatx. 1865) ruled that these guys in Wheeling were the true government of Virginia who consented to the creation of West Virginia and everything was a okay.
I could see the argument that this was simply victor’s justice, but to say it wasn’t republican in form seems to me to broaden the definition of “not a republic” so far that we might as well argue that southern states until 1965 did not have republican forms of government because so many blacks were unrepresented or that no state was republican in form until women got the vote. Or even that states who bar felons from voting are not republican.
The Restored Government simply excluded those who were not loyal to the Union, which would be a valid method of exclusion today.
Y’all are missing the point. There was a question at the time (whether valid or not) if the Restored Government of Virginia was the true government or was a coup. For this thread, whether or not the 2nd Wheeling Convention was a valid representation of Virginians and the selection of the RGV was republican in nature, etc. is immaterial and that’s the point I made originally. Any discussion/argument/analysis is done by Congress who determines whether a state’s government is in republican form. So why did I bring up WV’s formation? Because it was the first case where the guarantee clause was in question since Luther v. Borden was decided. Congress made a decision in accordance with that case and that decision was upheld in Virginia v West Virginia (1871).
So that is why the discussion of West Virginia is here - not to debate the RGV but to answer the question of who determines is a form of government is republican. It is Congress and the issues raised in the formation of West Virginia confirmed that.
That’s a very helpful insight and another reason I’m glad that we have so many non-Americans on this board. Explained that way, it makes perfect sense why the call for elections would have strategical implications.
I would love snap elections here. One of the real problems with US politics is how campaigns have lengthened to the point where they’re now virtually continuous. Campaigns should be a month long and with a parliament they can be.
If Canada’s ever merged into the US, I’d expect the parliamentary governments of the (republicanized) Canadian states to be considered acceptable republican governments as per the American constitution. Otherwise, I don’t think we’ll get a ruling on the question.
I don’t understand this perceived need for a state executive branch for legitimacy at all.
Of course, the other side of the coin is that if the government of the day has complete control over the timing of the election, that gives them a significant advantage over the opposition parties. So a compromise has gradually been worked out at the federal level and almost all of the provinces, where the law provides that the elections will normally be every four years, but preserves the power of the government to seek an earlier dissolution, either for straight political reasons (Harper in 2008), or if a minority government falls (hasn’t happened federally since the four year rule was legislated.)
You’re right about short election periods. There were three provincial elections in Canada in 2020: New Brunswick, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. The election writ was issued in New Brunswick on August 17 for a general election on September 14; in British Columbia, on September 21 for October 24; and in Saskatchewan, on September 29 for October 26.
Note that NB and BC were both minority governments and the previous elections had been in 2017 (BC) and 2018 (NB). Neither government had been defeated, but the premiers decided to call elections based on their political calculus. Saskatchewan had a majority government, elected in 2016 (although under a different premier), so was operating under the four year rule. All three governments were returned to office with majorities.
I think it was Stephen Colbert who mentioned our “grueling” extra-long Canadian federal election in 2015 - it was 58 days instead of the usual 35. Harper’s conservatives thought the extra time would give them long enough to mock Trudeau’s full head of hair and convince voters he was too young and inexperienced (“not ready!”). They didn’t. (Political ads showed a “diverse” hiring committee considering Trudeau’s resume and deciding “Not ready - but nice hair”.)
The downside of having legislated election days in Canada is that the campaign becomes extremely extended, like the US elections. Before that, yes, parties knew an election was coming and could get their ducks in a row, but didn’t commit to things like ad blitz and planning events in case they were too early (“peak too soon”).
I think it was one of the 60’s or 70’s US presidential elections where I was reading that some candidates were entering the contest as late as May before the August conventions and November elections. Nowadays, campaigns start formally the summer before, and in fact never actually stop.
I guess the real “Republic” question is where the executive powers lie. As I understand, the “president” in countries like Italy and Israel is a figurehead position, real executive power resides in the leader recognized in parliament. France, as usual, is the outlier.
Just curious whether the Federalist Papers had anything to say about separating the legislative from executive branches? The fractious congress in the USA can be a problem, but serves as a constraint on the executive (at times). By contrast, the joke in Canada is that the prime minister of a majority party is effectively dictator for 5 years, given the forces coercing party members to vote the party line.
That was a feature to the founding fathers and not a bug.
Edit: On re-read, I see that was your point. Carry on.
But the party in power could commit to those contractual expenses in advance, because they do know when the election would be. They could reserve things like buses, convention halls and ad time in private, before they become higher priced or scarce due to the election demands. Reserving for specific dates is generally cheaper than reserving for a range of dates. That was a not insignificant advantage for the party in power
It’s not that simple. The prime minister/premier has a great deal of power, but they can’t get too far ahead of their caucus, or lose support in caucus, as Maggie Thatcher, Jean Chrétien, and Alison Redford all found.
As long as they honor election laws, I don’t have a problem with the PM and the ruling party having significant power to govern. Voters know who to credit or blame.
Obviously, a parliamentary republic (Ireland, Israel, India, Italy) IS a republic. And it is not written down anywhere in the actual Constitution or Northwest Ordinance(*) that future newly-admitted states have to be organized in a manner parallel that of the national government in requiring the executive branch be independent of who’s the legislative majority.
One could imagine a Canadian Province seeking to accede to the USA changing its organization so that the LG becomes elected for a fixed term and the “crown” posts become attached to that office. That would be a parliamentary republic. Heck, it could even be elected by the LA rather than directly by the people and that’s still a republic.
(* And even then, at the start of the country not all elected offices were done by direct popular vote, some were elected by the legislatures – and heck, of the national elected branches neither President nor Senators were elected by direct popular vote.)
/end GQ part; begin discussion:
However, an argument would arise if indeed every state has to have the same republican form of government, or just “a” RFoG. So it would not be outside the realm of possibility that a majority in the SCOTUS would find somewhere in the “penumbras and emanations” that the republican structure of the states must include a popularly elected executive branch that’s independent of who’s the legislative majority. But that will have to remain in the realm of hypotheticals until someone actually tries it.