Constitution of 2018

[JamesHackerMP]

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?

Edited March 9, 2017 by JamesHackerMP

[-TSS-]

30 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

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?

Four years is the length of our parliamentary-term. Even though early elections are constitutionally possible they are very rare.

We are a republic but nowadays our President is vested with very limited powers but there was a time before when the President was a really powerful figure.

We had President Kekkonen who was something of a semi-authoritarian leader of Finland for 25 years in the years 1956-1981. His power was entirely excused because of the threat of the Soviets and he managed to maintain cordial relations with the Soviets but he became somewhat obsessive and started to think of himself as indispensable.

He remained President until 1981 when his apparent dementia was so far developed that it could not be hidden any longer. That was a shameful period in our history how a sick man was kept in front while some civil servants were scheming behind the closed doors.

After Kekkonen we had Koivisto for 12 years and the UN-laureate Ahtisaari and after him our first female President Tarja Halonen.

Then the constitution was changed to make the head of government the real political leader and nowadays Parliamentary-elections are the really serious elections.

The President still has some powers regarding foreign policy and he/she is directly elected but nowadays the Prime Minister is the undisputed political leader of the country.

[JamesHackerMP]

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.

[-TSS-]

It has been a gradual development in all federal countries that more and more power slips to the central-government. I also believe there is a lot of "grey are" where it is not clearly defined whether the federal-government or the states are responsible as it has not been clearly defined.

[JamesHackerMP]

20 hours ago, -TSS- said:

It has been a gradual development in all federal countries that more and more power slips to the central-government. I also believe there is a lot of "grey are" where it is not clearly defined whether the federal-government or the states are responsible as it has not been clearly defined.

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

[-TSS-]

It is a natural development in federal countries that power shifts to the central-government. Federalism was a more suitable form of government in the age of horse and cart and poor and slow communications.

[?Impact]

19 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Federalism was a more suitable form of government in the age of horse and cart and poor and slow communications.

I think there are both benefits and problems with federalism, and how it is implemented. For example I think our single criminal code across the entire country is far better than the American 51 criminal codes. Not everything needs to be done at a federal level, it is far more efficient to implement many things at lower levels of government. You can also band together several sub-sovereign jurisdictions into a bloc for certain services (e.g. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey). It is all about achieving the right balance, and how you let that evolve over time. Transportation safety for example makes sense at a federal level, but actual implementation of transportation systems is often better served at state/provincial or municipal levels.

[JamesHackerMP]

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?

[-TSS-]

Why is the House of Representatives-term so ridiculously short? Only two years and I guess it must cost a fortune to get elected and if you have to do it two years later again you are going bankcrupt.

 

 

The HOR is not any junior-chamber nor is the Senate any senior-chamber though they are often presented exactly that way. They are of equal value. Neither can override the other.

[?Impact]

12 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Why is the House of Representatives-term so ridiculously short? Only two years and I guess it must cost a fortune to get elected and if you have to do it two years later again you are going bankcrupt.

The HOR is not any junior-chamber nor is the Senate any senior-chamber though they are often presented exactly that way. They are of equal value. Neither can override the other.

Yes 2 years does seem very short, especially in modern times with billion dollar elections. Since the big parties control the big money, this propagates that system. 

The Senate does have some powers like confirmation of appointments as is going on now that the House does not have. It also has higher age and longer citizenship requirements than the House. There are similar powers in passing bills, with the exception of raising taxes which must be done by the House. 

[JamesHackerMP]

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Yes 2 years does seem very short, especially in modern times with billion dollar elections. Since the big parties control the big money, this propagates that system. 

The Senate does have some powers like confirmation of appointments as is going on now that the House does not have. It also has higher age and longer citizenship requirements than the House. There are similar powers in passing bills, with the exception of raising taxes which must be done by the House. 

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

[JamesHackerMP]

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.

[JamesHackerMP]

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.

Edited March 13, 2017 by JamesHackerMP

[GostHacked]

On 3/10/2017 at 9:34 AM, JamesHackerMP said:

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

What's the matter with the current one?

[JamesHackerMP]

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.

[-TSS-]

I like the bit about fixed-term elections. It gives predictability. I don't like the European constitutions which give the possibility of dissolving Parliament before its term is out and call new elections.

Having said that, the British changed their law that 5 years is 5 years unless something really exceptional happens like a vote of no confidence for the government but early elections called just on the whim of the PM based on the opinion polls looking good is history.

Unless I'm mistaken something of a similar change happened in Canada too, didn't it? No more early elections unless necessary.

My memory is hazy but I seem to recall one Canadian election which was critisized for being called far too early and for no other reason than to improve the position of the government of the day. There was no political crisis or whatsoever which would have required an early dissolution of the parliament.