The title is not very descriptive, but I couldn’t think of a better one.
I know that there are other countries that have a federalist system–off hand, I can think of Canada, Germany, and Australia. I’m sure there are others. Do the states/provinces in those countries typically have bicameral legislatures?
Canada no, Australia yes (except Queensland)
The German state parliaments have only one chamber. In the UK, the devolved legislatures for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have only one chamber, although the Parliament of Northern Ireland that existed from 1922 to 1973 had two chambers. The regional councils/assemblies in Italy are unicameral.
Off the top of my head, I think the US may be an outlier as regards the concept of “states’ rights”. In other federated countries the states/provinces have defined limits to their powers and duties, and at a guess deal more with administration than legislation, and so don’t feel the need for a revising chamber.
That very well may be. The US is certainly the only country where the states have their own military forces.
Australia has 9 parliaments, one being the Federal which is bicameral
Of those 8 state legislatures 5 are bicameral (NSW, VIC, SA, WA and TAS)
3 are unicameral (QLD, ACT and NT).
The two territories have always been unicameral (and relatively recent). Queensland abolished its upper house in 1922.
No.
Australia’s High Court deliberates the constitutional questions of the demarcation between Federal and State authority.
But does Australia have a default principle that where the constitution doesn’t specify a right/responsibility, it belongs to the state rather than federal level?
It would be rather odd if a clause enumerated in a Federal constitution was considered a State responsibility.
It is constitutionally defined that the Governor General is the Head of the Australian Armed Forces, hence on federation all states conceded their right to maintain a state militia.
A lot of the ingress and egress of Australian Federal/State responsibilities are handled legislatively rather than constitutionally.
There are Federal departments of health and education, but the federal role is advisory. All the day-to-day work is done by the states.
Constitutionally there is free trade between the states. But during COVID (and some prior emergencies) blockades were mounted restricting interstate movement on health grounds.
The primary divide in ideology on the bench of the Australia High Court is between Federalists and States Rights, largely with the Feds winning.
It would be a general principle that the rights/responsibilities of the Federal government are defined constitutionally and by Federal case law and anything outside that is a State concern, until such a matter is challenged and determined in the High Court
Australia has a federal government, and six state and two territory governments (there are other territories but they are mainly little islands covered in penguins).
The federal government is divided into a lower house (House of Representatives - members represent an electorate), and an upper house (Senate - members represent their state or territory).
Most of the states are also bicameral, the exception being Queensland as a single chamber. In NSW the houses are the Legislative Assembly (lower house) and the Legislative Council (upper house), with members either representing a seat or elected across the state on a party ticket.
There are some variations - Tasmania has a complex proportional representative system that would require two heads to understand. Luckily Tasmania is the home of two-headed people.
Yes.
As in the US, the Australian Constitution contains a finite list of topics on which the Commonwealth Parliament has competence to legislate.
State parliaments, by contrast, all have a general competence to legislate for the “peace, order and good government” of their respective states. (These words are not justiciable, so you can’t challenge a State law on the grounds that it is not conducive to peace, order or good government.)
The result is that the states can legislate on any topic but state legislation on matters on which the Commonwealth also has competence to legislate will be overridden by any inconsistent Commonwealth legislation .
And, for what it’s worth, that examplar of constitutional democracy, the Russian Federation, has a similar setup. The Federal Constitution has a list of competences of the federal government, and a second list of matters which are join competences of the federal government and the governments of the constituent parts of the federation (republics, krays, oblasts, etc) and, subject to those two lists, the governments of the constituent parts enjoy “full state power”.
South Africa is not-quite-federal in that our provinces have independent legislative and executive powers but only over a specific (though quite large) list of competences, while the general legislative powers are with the national government. The provincial legislatures are unicameral. The national parliament is bicameral and follows the fairly common pattern where the lower house represents the people directly, while the upper house represents the provinces.
There was one state, Bavaria, which had a bicameral legislature until 2000. In addition to the usual directly elected “Landtag”, it used to have a Senate with members appointed by associations representing various professions, trades, and social organisations (such as churches). It had consultative powers only and could be overruled by the elected Landtag. It was a totally useless and superfluous body and the constitutional amendment to abolish it was pushed through via a popular initiative.
In a typical, truly federalist system, the constitutional presumption is that any power (executive as well as legislative) rests at the state level, and the constitution defines federal powers as a deviation from this default. This applies e.g. in Germany, Australia, and Switzerland, and to my knowledge also in Belgium. It does not apply in Canada, where the constitution defines provincial powers and leaves all others with the federal government.
One could also say the EU is a federation that leaves most powers at the state level, and those states have a variety of legislative structures.
That’s somewhat analogous to how the US formed.
No. It’s a treaty-based organisation in which, through successive treaties, the member states have established powers and procedures for collective action on specific areas - and the basic principle is that the final decisions on policy objectives and primary legislation in those areas are taken collectively by the representatives of member states’ governments. That’s after lengthy discussions and ping-ponging of documents aimed at maximising consensus between (a) the member state governments (b) the Commission as the developer of proposed legislation and (c) the Parliament.
The discussion back when I was in school (60’s) when there was much discussion about repatriating the Canadian consitution (at that time, the British North America Act of the British parliament) that Britain deliberately gave the majority of powers to the provinces to create a less powerful central government; since they were seeking to avoid setting up strong powers in their (do)minions.
OTOH, it makes sense to basically say “unless it is an issue that has serious cross-boundary implications, leave it to the provinces.” Back in the day, travel was slow and economic issues were a lot more localized.
IIRC the American consitution is similar, just that the US federal government is rich enough to buy its way into areas it has no rights to.
(And for the OP - only the federal government in Canada has a second chamber, the “chamber of sober second thought”. This is said ironically, because it’s reputation as an (still) appointed chamber was a repository for old used politicians, usually old white men with alcoholic tendencies. It was cenceived for the self-protection of the propertied upper class from the unwashed masses, as a requirement for membership was owning property in the area represented.)
In Canada, there are three lists of powers: exclusively federal; exclusively provincial; and a short list of concurrent powers.
There are two residual clauses, one in the federal list and one in the provincial list. Those clauses have been interpreted as meaning that matters that are not specifically identified are to be allocated according to the general principles of the two lists. If something is similar to the enumerated federal powers, then it’s federal, but if it’s more similar to the provincial powers, it’s provincial.
For example, the 1867 allocation of powers put interprovincial transport in the federal list, so when aviation came along, it was held to be federal. Health care in the modern sense wasn’t enumerated in the 1867, but the courts have held that it is more analogous to the list of local matters in the provincial list, so health care is a provincial matter.
Defining federations is a complex matter, but I would not agree with that definition. I think a better definition is that the powers of the central government and the regional governments are set out in the Constituion and cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment.
Neither Canada nor India follow your definition. Yet both countries are considered federations.
Sorry, but this is not correct, as set out in my previous post.