I withdraw by two centuries! I have actually read Postan’s work but did not take that in!
And as I pointed out above, the US is a constitutional entity as a Republic with Democratic input to a degree over the years (No blacks, No Women etc.)
The really interesting thing about the structure is how it mimicked the Political Structure in Britain at the time! It is a sort of elected constitutional monarchy- a President with strictly limited powers, constrained by common law and statute law through the courts, and a parliamentary body of two houses, one directly representing the electors, and one based on land!
It could have taken many other forms- titular presidency with no real powers (Germany, Israel), a strong presidency (French Fifth Republic), all power vested in the elected body. No, it chose to mirror what it knew best- constitutional monarchy.
I thought the US was a constitutional REPUBLIC.
BTW- there is no such thing as real democracy in the world today. Switzerland comes closest.
I’m not so sure about Switzerland. Democracy is a fundamentally majoritarian ideal - the majority tends to win - but Switzerland’s system has some surprisingly powerful tools to frustrate that. Any 100,000 signatures can trigger a referendum on an issue, and this means an initiative needs a supermajority, essentially, to win, or else have so many exceptions and provisos to reduce the likelihood of that signature requirement being hit.
I forget the paper, but a few years ago I read a fascinating document on Switzerland’s party system which described how pressure groups in Switzerland are far more powerful and far more professionally regimented than elsewhere. They are essentially micro-political parties, but with the capability of scuppering the will of the vast majority by threatening a referendum and thus scaring off people trying to do something.
Now I am no expert and if there’s a Swiss person here able to enlighten us that would be awesome. Of course Switzerland remains a democracy, just a different one (just as Britain and America are different to each other), but I’d hesitate to say whether it’s more or less democratic…
This argument is based on near-total ignorance of what the word “democracy” means in 21st (and 20th, and probably 19th and 18th) century English.
The accepted definition of “democracy” is By the people and For the people.
Since when has a government of people elected by a minority of the population and that votes along party lines been either by or for the people? I’ve only once been asked by a politician ( at election time ) what I thought about anything, and they certainly didn’t do what I wanted when they got elected.
“Democracy” is a con by the elites, pure and simple, but like someone wise once said, it’s better than all the rest.
I thought our constitution was established before we came to these isles, and has persisted throughout our stay here? It is summarised in three simple, flexible principles:
- the royal prerogative
- the privileges of parliament
- the ancient liberties of the people
Of course, the tricky part is deciding if and when we ever became ‘democratic’.
Anyway, I think we can all agree that Mr Obama was completely correct, when describing his own corner of the former colonies* as the place which has adopted the US constitution for the longest possible time. Good show! Well done to you all!
Sandwich
- for the avoidance of doubt, excluding Kenya.
No, that’s a soundbite thought up by a politician from the 1860s. I’d prefer to use Wikipedia’s definition:
This seems to describe the US and UK systems equally.
Just curious - as opposed to what other method?
How would you like them to ask you, bearing in mind the millions of constituents they have? Would you like a telephone call?
Is it a con? I cannot tell if you are happy with this ‘con’ or if you strive for something better.
Yes, a democratic republic (as distinct from an aristocratic republic).
That’s easy: the word has more than one definition. There’s the abstract, perfect, theoretic, nitpicker’s “democracy” where the entire polity gathers in the square and holds public votes on all matters. No delegates, no chairmen, just The People in its perfect expression.
Then there’s the commonplace real-world “democracy” where we vote for our delegated leaders. The U.S. still kicks out the entire House of Representatives every two years, and damn near anyone can run. (Look at some of the bozos who win!) Highly democratic.
The dictionary game doesn’t work.
Based on his action and statements while serving as President, I shudder to think what he taught in that class.
Because they would have been facts, as liberally biased as they were?
Are you serious?! The British Constitution evolved over a course of centuries. There was a long time when there was no Parliament and the “ancient liberties of the people” were a thing unheard-of, unless by “people” you mean “nobles,” and even that was a long time coming. Not even in pre-Norman England would you find a constitution you would recognize.
And this was at one of our most politically moderate universities, in the classroom of the kind of guy who pals around with Larry Summers. Imagine the horrors that constitutional law teaching must be at Berkeley, or at post-Summers Harvard.
I don’t shudder too often, but some people might if they considered who is, at least sometimes, teaching constitutional law at Liberty University:
The above doesn’t bother me that much. Ideologues (among whom I do NOT include the President) have been teaching constitutional law in this country for centuries, and I don’t think it has a big effect.
<How would you like them to ask you, bearing in mind the millions of constituents they have?>
Ever heard of Switzerland? They have things called referendums in which the general population influence their lives directly.
It’s called democracy.
<Is it a con?>
Of course.
The elites have always conned the masses.
It was first the priests, then the kings, and now it’s the rich, which manipulate the populace through the sham of an elected government.