JamesHackerMP

You ignore the reciprocal nature of power. The principle of "responsible government"--which means one body being responsible to another, not meaning politicians are in any way "responsible"--is that the executive (cabinet/PM) is responsible to the House of Commons. I know that. However, in reality, it's more like the House is responsible to the PM rather than the other way around. It's more complex than you're making it out to be. When politicians have to worry about their survival on a daily basis--rather than having a definite term like a US president--they need to pull those "tricks" and cause the "responsibility" to flow in the opposite direction in order to survive. Think of it as the laws of physics. I can push my hands against my desk. The desk is actually pushing back at me with equal force. Presidents (not just American presidents) do not have the weapons a prime minister has. Why? Because his/her vulnerability is delayed. A prime minister's vulnerability---as you pointed out that he is responsible to the Commons---is ever-present. In Canada, most votes are commensurate with actual no-confidence votes. Canada gives even greater powers to the ruling party over its MPs than in the UK and many other parliamentary systems. So yes, the PM is more vulnerable than his presidential counterpart--on paper! But, because on paper is not always commensurate with reality, it means that, by extension, the positions of the MPs of the ruling party are also vulnerable to the awesome power of the PM, who is in turn afraid of them. He can hold a cabinet reshuffle. He can tempt MPs to raise them to cabinet, or threaten to demote them (or remove them from the government entirely) if they are already in the executive body. See? Things don't always work out the way they taught us in civics class. (In Canada or the US, it seems.)

If I may weigh in, I think the question is irrelevant. Take into account that Trudeau can rely on force and intimidation within the political system in ways that Trump could only dream of. still, they both have jobs I am glad I don't have.

Believe it or not, C.J., they do sometimes.

eh, could use a little tweaking, that's all. There are some holes in it that probably woudln't be corrected by just a couple of amendments. I don't think a constitution should be replaced every twenty years, as Jefferson asserted. That's ridiculous. But maybe every 200, 250, something like that might work. The only problem is what would some people at a hypothetical convention be tempted to put in it, like stuff that does not have to do with the actual machinery of government. We once put an amendment in our constitution that prohibited alcohol. That went well.

What is the difference between the European COUNCIL and the COMMISSION? What are their functions exactly?

As far as why is there a two-year election cycle in the States, there were some states at the time that were actually having terms of ONE year in their lower house. They felt that the House should be more responsive to the people, so it should be up for grabs, in entirety, and more frequently. Personally I cannot fathom waiting four years to throw someone out who proved impossible to live with. That's what we have to do in the state legislature, where both houses share the same four year terms. It sux.

Also, the money being raised has little, in my opinion, to do with the two-year election cycle. Senators have a six-year term and they raise even more.

Not quite. Bills for raising revenue (it reads) begin in the House but still require it to go through the Senate.

Ok we've gotten way off topic. We're not talking about the US House of Representatives here, or democracy, or meritocracy. that wasn't what I asked about.

Michael, you ignore the fact that the executive power of the United States government is vested in the President. Not the AG. Now, no one rules alone, but he still answers to an elected president.

Screwy. Absolutely screwy. I'm convinced after reading as much of the Wikipedia article as I could stand, that it's all designed to get as little done as possible. Could someone knowledgeable please explain this structure to me?

I disagree, TSS. It is a suitable form of government now as well. Impact, I believe, has hit the nail on the head. How exactly does federalism work in Canada? Where lies the demarcation between a provincial government and the federal government in Ottawa?

Good point. That is why a new constitution should clarify the relationship.

That sounds pretty standard for parliamentary democracies. Although I understand most of them don't allow the head of state to have any powers over foreign affairs, though they accredit and receive ambassadors. The US presidency has grown over time, but then again, it's partly because the United States federal government has grown over time. I have to admit that, despite seeing the need to have some updates to it, or even a new one to plug some of the holes, the 1787 constitution has proven to be reasonably adaptable. Despite the growth of the presidency, the Congress still has enormous powers. Even "Obamacare", despite being the initiative of the president, had to be introduced into the House and Senate by members of Congress. The President can recommend laws, he can approve laws, he can even [try to] prevent a law from coming into being (or privately threaten to do so) but he cannot actually make the law. A friend of mine who works on the Hill told me a very small fraction of the bills introduced in Congress come from the president's recommendations. What the founding fathers wanted was a president who served as long as deemed fit to do so. They wanted a shorter term (four years they thought was nice) so that his competency to govern could be reassessed at regular intervals. Washington could have served for life if he had wanted to; thank God he didn't, since it started a tradition (not broken until FDR) that a president should only serve two terms then step down. But that was when "republican government" was commensurate with "legislative supremacy" (i.e., Congress should be the most powerful branch of government, since one of its chambers was directly elected by the voters). So it would not have been as harmful back then. The authors of our 1787 constitution figured that the more transient congressmen would be the most powerful people (and the most dangerous) since they had the power to make laws. The presidential veto was likely put in there to prevent congress from passing laws that would circumscribe the president's authority to administrate the nation and carry out its laws. That's one thing I wouldn't change. Even in Britain at the time, the dichotomy between the head of state and head of government wasn't fully developed, so there was nothing like that for us to adopt into our own constitution.

I still do not see the difference that one year will make. Besides as I said, it messes up the timing of the elections. Also, I haven't heard any news outlet in the States talk about changing the presidential term to 5 years instead of 4. Also, the second term of a president is when he/she typically worried about his/her legacy. How long is the term of a parliament in Finland? and what's the average or median tenure of a prime minister?

I agree that there needs to be a more clear "demarcation" between state and federal jurisdiction.

No, no one's ever talked about that. Besides it would put the election cycle out of sync. The congressional elections are every two years, so every other election coincides with a presidential election (we like that).

Well, that would explain the confusion over difference in state laws, wouldn't it? So, what parts of the constitution, or what principles enshrined within it, are "outdated" in your opinion? That they need to be brought into the 21st century?

Interesting ideas. Several advantages I can see, some of which are equally pitfalls; as well as several actual pitfalls, which under the right circumstances would be advantages. A lot of things in politics are double-edged swords, no? The Senate must have equal legislative power with the House of Representatives. If it doesn't, the states aren't represented as states, and the US would degenerate into a unitary state which, by the way, it isn't. Even liberals in the US would chafe under such a structure, however much they say now that they wouldn't. The president--under the actual present system--has his own "pet add ons" just as much as any member of Congress. If the Secretary of the Treasury is to be a member of Congress, if that's what you're planning, it'll pretty much go through on the nod. No sober second thought would count. And the SecTreas, as a member of Congress, would likely have his own pet add ons he'd want to jam into the budget. (There is a simpler way to solve the "pork barrel" problem). The drawback is that the executive arm, being a member of the legislative, would have all the power over the budget. The backbenchers might TRY to provide some sober second thought to the budget, or even the Senate, but it wouldn't work--the cabinet (including the Sec. of the Treasury) would have most of the power. Because most European countries are unitary states rather than federations. Hence the confusion. The United States is far too extensive to be governed as a unitary state, hence, things like that will persist. Everything has its negative side in politics somehow. I'm not sure Americans would really know what to do with parliamentary democracy. We're so used to presidential democracy and old habits die hard. As far as the budget, however, you do have a point and you're at least going in the right direction with it. Currently, the problem with budgets is that the constitution sort of implies the Congress is the purse of the community, but makes no specific guidelines as to the specific process. A better idea would be to make the procedure specific and inviolable somehow. In maryland, the governor doesn't even have the power to veto the budget bill. He presents it to the bicameral General Assembly (state legislature) but once it passes both the senate and House of Delegates, it's the law. (I might be mistaken about that, I'll have to ask a few people, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works in this state.)

Yes, so I read. I think it's the funniest britcom I've ever seen. Well, all right, I guess I should say "anything goes" then.

LOL! Sounds like you're a fan of YPM as well? Well, why would you in the US? Constitutions have to fit the political culture of the country in question.

Materials which you can probably find in Canada, too. And the United States for that matter.

Ah. It is the first book I have actually finished in a while. It was good. Surprising ending, a little weird, but that's just my opinion.

Like the imperial senate, from Star Wars, lol. Anywho, it sounds like there was a good reason for Brexit, judging by that. the EU isn't even supposed to be a government at all and yet its mostly unelected structure mandates 80% of your legislation. Can the people of Finland pick their party's leader in elections? or must it be the parliamentary party like in the UK?

Well, heck...I was hoping for some input from some of the more prolific posters. But I guess I'll give some of my own. Change the Senate turnover to 1/2 at a time instead of 1/3 at a time, somehow. That could either necessitate having terms of 6 and 3 years--for the senators and the representatives respectively--or 4 and 2. The former would probably necessitate as well changing the president's term to 3 years (with 3 terms allowed). 4 and 2 would not change the presidential elections, of course. Gerrymandering: stop it! Something in the constitution must disallow states to gerrymander, or to disallow the states from giving the authority to the governors/state legislators. Overriding a veto: 3/5 of the members present, instead of 2/3, to override a presidential veto. members of congress shall have no benefits in excess of a federal civil servant (besides their own annual salary). No BS of extra money for serving at least 20 years in Congress, for example. Presidential elections: I wouldn't end the electoral college, but I would change the presidential primary process to make sure all states hold their primaries on the SAME....DAMN....DAY...throughout the union.