Much of the blame for the neverending presidential campaigns can be placed on Jimmy Carter. In 1973, he was Governor of Georgia, but not a nationally known figure. Having ambitions for the presidency, he started his campaign about that year, which was 3 years before the election. In the first couple years, it was just making lots of speeches at various political events outside Georgia, but it got his name better known to the general public. Anyway, it was successful, so every else who had such ambitions started to imitate it.
He is, after all, history’s greatest monster.
The '24 campaign pretty much begins January 21. That’s not a good thing.
IIRC the other point was that he made the Iowa caucus a notable feature of the presidential campaign; caucus being far less representative f the population and easier to win… Since caucusing requires organization, rather than media exposure, it meant that serious campaigning had to begin even earlier than the NH primary.
But as the saying goes, the more people who know a secret, the less it’s a secret. The cat is usually out of the bag once busses, hotel venues and ad spots are booked etc. Not every bus company, hotel employee or media outlet is on the ruling party’s side. And some things have to be booked early, unlike Four Seasons Landscaping. Party insiders told to be ready for certain dates have been known to gossip. Plus, it’s a safe bet. Parties try to avoid calling elections around holiday long weekends, religious holidays, harvest time, school breaks, etc. if they can.
Even so, often the ruling party has not made a firm decision on several candidate dates until close to decision time.
But in fact, “when’s the election?” is one of the fun guessing games of Canadian politics.
Arguably some states, with their plural executives, are closer to the directorial system than the presidential system the federal government has. Pennsylvania initially had a Supreme Executive Council instead of a single governor. And that was the government we had when we ratified the US Constitution.
Or the Lt Governor’s office could simply be merged with the Premier’s office, named Governor to match other states, but be elected by the legislature and subject to a vote of no confidence. Separate heads of state and government are usual, but not required in parliamentary republics; look at South Africa or the German & Austrian bundesländer.
Yes, see post 26, above.
That would be a fundamental change, because it would come close to the “unitary executive” theory at the federal level in the US. The Premier of a province does not have any constitutional status or special constitutional powers. The Premier has authority as the person who advises the Lieutenant Governor on the use of the Crown’s powers, and the Premier is the head of the Cabinet, He and the other Cabinet members exercise statutory powers specifically delegated to them as a group, to to the individual ministers.
The Premier doesn’t have the power to call up the head of an agency and direct that agency head to do something, like approve a vaccine, or else be fired (to pick a crazy example that would never happen), unless the statutes give the Premier that authority.
But if you merge the powers of the Crown with the Premier, you get that result, changing it from a system of collective executive, where the premier is the most important official, to a system where all the executive powers are vested in the Premier and the Cabinet ministers are direct delegates of the Premier.
As noted above, what “a Republican Form of Government” is has been held to be a nonjusticiable political question. The federal courts wouldn’t get involved. Luther v. Borden was cited above; it arose out of this now-obscure but very interesting incident: Dorr Rebellion - Wikipedia
During Huey Long’s absolute dominance of Louisiana politics in the Thirties, there was some discussion, there and elsewhere, as to whether the state still actually had a republican form of government anymore. When he was a U.S. senator, for instance, he was actively bossing around the governor who succeeded him, and sometimes would stand in the gallery of the legislature, shouting orders down at his minions, er, the elected representatives of the good people of the Pelican State. It really came closest to a monarchy of any state in modern American history. Had he not been assassinated, there was a lot of worried speculation as to what Long might do next, especially since his White House ambitions were very well-known.
Agreed, in theory, although in practical American political terms I think it’s very unlikely, as it would be so different from what most voters are used to. The Framers knew and understood the British form of democracy and admired it, by and large (some, like Hamilton, more than others). So long as there was no king or quasi-king, and democratic norms (particularly free and open elections, fixed terms and no titles of nobility) were broadly followed, I think you’d be cool under the Guarantee Clause.
A system which divides power between three branches, with checks and balances, is pretty well baked into American political theory and practice. I don’t expect any state to give up the three branches anytime soon.
Ohio’s first constitution in 1803 provided for a very weak governor, as it happens, largely due to legislators’ dissatisfaction with the perceived arrogance of presidentially-appointed territorial governors before statehood. The early governors didn’t even enjoy a veto power; later constitutions changed that. But there was a governor.
It’s habitual. That’s not the same as “baked in.” “Baked in” means there’s no way to get around it. Clearly if a state wanted to, it could get around having a separate executive.
But even then, it’s a question of definition. There is a separation of powers in parliamentary systems, with the executive and the legislature having different powers. It’s the overlapping of membership between the executive and the legislature that seems to be the stumbling block for US folks, but that’s not the same as saying there isn’t a separate executive.
[And this may be my last post to this thread, because Discourse is warning me that I’m talking too much and should let others have the floor.]
Post as much you like, NP. Discourse ain’t the boss of you!
OK, let’s look at another extreme than a monarchy. A state having a monarchy, including a constitutional one, would clearly violate the US constitution. But just for the sake of argument, suppose Cuba wanted to join the Union. Cuba is a communist country and not exactly a democracy. But communist countries are considered republics. Not that I expect Congress would admit Cuba to the Union while maintaining its totalitarian government elements, but could Congress theoretically do so and have a communist 51st state? Or would that violate the 14th amendment or any othe provision of the US constitution?
As I understand, “Republic” means the head of state is elected. Then we have the issue that all the constitutional rights guarantees apply to the newly joined state, including freedom of assembly and free speech, so it’s not as if the new state can ban other political parties or prevent them from assembling and discussing politics. I wonder if “equal before the law” would prevent the state from banning candidates who are not part of the “official” party? Presumably congress could pass a new voting rights act. And so on… I suspect a less-than-democratic state government could not survive if it abides by the constitution and the feds have the will to enforce it.
So back to one of my earlier questions, why couldn’t you have an elected monarch a la the Pope. Combine it with a parliamentary system and give them some power so they are not as impotent as QE2.
It’s a political question and would be up to Congress in passing a bill to admit the new state. I’m sure that Cuba or Vatican City would, as currently governed and if applying today, not pass the smell test.
It sort of what I was trying to say earlier. Cuba is republican in form. That is all that is required under the RFoG Clause. Of course, there would be other issues such as human rights abuses, deprivation of private property ownership, etc. that would violate other provisions of the Constitution and would have to be changed in order for Cuba to be a state. But it can put a check by RFoG.
On the flip side, Canada would meet most (if not all) of the other provisions of the Constitution but fails the RFoG Clause because it has a Queen. And even if you called the Queen a President or a Governor or a Warmbongler, the name change doesn’t change the form.
How would this work? IIUC, the Pope has absolute power over Vatican City, is unelected, and serves for life. Even if you take some of his power away and give that portion of power to a parliament, it still fails.
The Pope is elected, but he’s elected by an elite body that was selected by previous popes. The people at large, neither of Vatican City nor of the worldwide Catholic church, have no say, except in so far as they can convince those who do have a say.
And I’m still puzzled by the notion that the UK and Canada aren’t republics, since the monarch isn’t part of government. I suppose you might argue that they’re not a republican form of state, but they are still a republican form of government.
As one of Her Majesty’s Canadian subjects, I need to mention that saying that the Queen of the UK, Canada and 14 other countries is “not part of government” is actually not correct. Formally, the Queen does have some power. It is true that that power is restricted by the law and that in practice, she respects the “constitutional convention” of letting politicians make the final decisions. But a constitutional convention is not an enforceable law, more of a gentleman’s agreement that those in politics/power generally respect in order to ensure that government properly operates in a certain way. Formally, the Queen still has some powers including, in particular, that of giving or withholding “royal assent”, I.E. of approving or vetoing laws. In both Canada and the UK, no bill passed by the UK Parliament (or the devolved Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies), the Parliament of Canada, or the Legislatures of the Canadian provinces and territories become law until they receive Royal Assent. In Canada, this (and other royal duties) are normally done by the appointed Queen’s viceregal representative, that is, the Governor General for federal laws, the Lieutenant Governors of the provinces. (In the three territories, assent is given by their Commissioners - who are representatives of federal government, not the Queen.) However, Canada’s founding document, the Constitution Act, 1867, eplicitly states (section 9) that all executive authority “of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen [i.e. Queen Victoria and her heirs and successors]”. When the Queen’s father, King George VI, made a state visit to Canada, he gave Royal Assent to some bills in person in the Senate of Canada.
It is true that the last time a British monarch refused Royal Assent in Britain was in 1708 and that no Canadian Governor General has ever refused it. However, it has happened multiple times that a provincial Lieutenant Governor has refused to assent to a bill or reserved the decision to the Governor General (the Constitution act, 1867 also lays down that the Governor General may reserve the decision over a federal bill to the Queen, and that a Lieutenant Governor may reserve the decision over a provincial bill to the Governor General). The last time this happened was in 1961 and it is unlikely to happen today, but still, it has been successfully done on the provincial level multiple times.
So the powers of the Queen and her viceregal representatives are not merely imagined but are a matter of law, even if they normally no longer exercise them however they please (essentially in order to avoid controversy crisis and uphold democracy and - I assume - to assure that they won’t be deposed someday). But they may be used occasionally as a “tiebreaker” to settle a political impasse, or in some other crisis. In 1926, Canada’s Governor General, Lord Byng, refused a request by Prime Minister Willam Lyon Mackenzie King to dissolve Parliament and call a general election (MacKenzie, whose party did not get the most seats, had refused to resign and let the opposing party form a minority government). King did get what he wanted in the long run, resigning and, the opposing party receiving a vote of no confidence, an election was called and this time King won again,but Byng’s action itself stood.
Moreover, even if it is not habitual for the Queen to use her remaining powers just as she pleases, she does meet with the British Prime Minister once a week and I assure you they talk politics, not just about the British weather. Margaret Thatcher praised the Queen for the guidance she gave her during her time in office.
Furthermore, the Queen - and Prince Charles - have used one prerogative that they have (I don’t know under what authority they have it but they do have it), namely to prevent bills that would make legal changes to their prerogatives from being considered by the British Parliament. Yes, there is a type of Bill that the Queen can - and occasionally has - vetoed before it was even considered! (My memory of this topic is a bit vague, I haven’t described it here. I would research it again but for lack of time).
So in short, the Queen is part and parcel of the government of the UK and of Canada as well. All laws are enacted in her name, even if she effectively delegates her remaining decision-making power to other elected (and in some cases appointed) members of government.
Even if the monarch were legally stripped of all his/her power and made a purely symbolic figurehead (as is the case, I think, in Sweden), I’m not 100% sure that having a monarch as a symbolic head of state would qualify as a “republican form of government”. Perhaps it would, but I don’t see why a province wanting to join the USA would even want the Queen to remain head of state. It would probably have to adopt a constitution where either the Premier (perhaps re-named the Governor) would take on the powers formerly exercised by the Queen (the Lieutenant Governor appointed to represent her), or a Governor were elected who would do so. Or something like that. Given that Canada is a federal country like the USA, I doubt the whole country would ever join and become one big state. More likely individual provinces would, and if all of them joined the USA, obviously they would have to acknowledge the POTUS as head of state and not the Queen.
As for the idea of the Vatican becoming an American state, that is very unlikely. Not only is the pope considered a monarch (even if an elected one) - and an absolute monarch at that, but given that the Vatican is literally the size of a very large city square, it lacks the population and I presume the economy that would justify giving it the powers of an American state. Puerto Rico, which is far larger and more populous, is not yet a state, so it wouldn’t be fair to give statehood to the Vatican. Another thing that complicates this matter is that the Vatican, while an independent state relative to other countries, does not hold its own sovereignty. This is held by the Holy See, an organization of the Catholic Church whose physical territorial jurisdiction it is. Besides perhaps North Korea or some Islamic countries, the Vatican would be just about the last country in the world that I could imagine as becoming an American state.
I used the Pope as an example of an elected, not hereditary, monarch. In the US the elected monarch for life would have to be in an elected manner.