Posted on 05/15/2006 12:51:16 PM PDT by SmithL
A persuasive argument could be made for moving California toward a parliamentary democracy rather than the federal system that the state adopted from the national government 150-plus years ago.
The federal system, rooted in the post-Revolutionary War fear of concentrated power, institutionalizes the concept of "checks and balances." We Californians have enhanced the diffusion inherent in the federal system by making more of the executive branch offices separately elected, installing a system of direct democracy that bypasses elected government altogether, maintaining a long state constitution that decrees how government is to be conducted, requiring supermajority votes on many issues, and vesting authority in many quasi-independent agencies.
We have deluded ourselves into believing that installing more cooks in the political kitchen will somehow produce a more palatable menu when, in fact, it has exactly the opposite effect. One of many examples: Multiple offices and agencies claim pieces of California's 6 million-student system of public K-12 education, and that means no one is accountable for the performance of the system. Everyone claims credit whenever something goes well, and no one bears responsibility for when things go wrong, thus increasing the public's frustration. One can take almost any issue - transportation, water, land use, energy, etc. - and the dynamics are similar.
A parliamentary system, as used in Great Britain, Canada and most other democracies, strengthens the executive branch of government by requiring it to reflect a legislative majority. A parliamentary governor would have the authority - and the responsibility - to make policy as long as he or she retained a legislative majority, thus diminishing the buck-passing and gridlock-inducing aspects of the federal system that have enervated California.
We should be moving toward streamlining authority and accountability but, if anything, we have continued to move in the other direction,
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Walters is an idiot.
I only read whatever Walters columns that are posted here on FR, but it has been my impression that he is one of the few political writers in this state that cuts through the BS and shoots straight. I strongly remember valuing his columns during the Davis recall period.
I'm not sure that his proposed solution is the right one, but he sure hits the nail on the head about lack of accountability. And it's one hell of an expensive way to run government. (As if anyone who pays CA state taxes needs to be told this... :-( )
Words fail me.
Can't be done without amending the US Constitution. One of the lesser-known clauses says one of the reponsibilities of the Federal Government is to ASSURE that all states have "a republican form of government", which a "parliamentary democracy" is not.
This is a complete misunderstanding of the section:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
This is a guarantee to every state that the Federal government will remain a republic (IOW will respect their rights and powers as states) and will provide them protection against invasion and insurrection. It is not a promise to the people dictating what their form of government must be.
Where do you get that interpretation? It's contrary to every interpretation of that section that I've ever heard. That is most definitely "a promise to the people dictating what their form of government must be." It was put there to prevent the various states from setting up autocratic governments such as the British one we had recently escaped. It had nothing to do with a guarantee to the states that the federal government would remain a republic.
I can't agree. This is one of those times that the Constitution is quite dictatorial.
From Wikipedia:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government... This clause, while somewhat obscure today, has historically been a part of the debate about the rights of citizens vis-a-vis state governments. No explanation is offered in the Constitution as to what constitutes a republican government; it may have been intended to mean nothing more than that no state could erect a monarchy (a threat that might have seemed more realistic in 1787 than it does today).
A crisis in 1840s Rhode Island forced the Supreme Court to rule on the meaning of this clause. At the time, the state constitution was the old royal charter established in the 17th century, under which most free white males in the state were disenfranchised; an attempt to hold a popular convention to write a new constitution was declared insurrection by the charter government, and the converntion leaders were arrested. One of them brought suit in federal courts, arguing that Rhode Island's government was not "republican" in character, and that his arrest (along with all of the government's other acts) were invalid. In Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), the Court rejected the notion that the "republican-ness" of states lay within the purview of judicial review, holding that "it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State ... as well as its republican character." In effect, it held the clause to be non-justiciable.
The ruling did leave it open to Congress to establish guidelines for the republican nature of state governments, however, which became an important part of the initial phases of Reconstruction after the American Civil War. The Radical Republican-led Congress viewed this clause as a tool to shape the governments of the reconquered southern states: they argued that any state that did not offer equality before the law and suffrage for former slaves could not be considered truly "republican," and thus could be denied Congressional representation. [1] With the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the power of the federal government to safeguard these rights was explicitly added to the Constitution, and this interpretation of Section Four became moot. Indeed, when the Supreme Court revisited some of the territory covered by Luther v. Borden in cases like Baker v. Carr, the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause was the basis of its changed decisions.
Now that's one of the longest sentences I've ever seen him write! Plus it's full of puss that leads to pussy thinking to the maximum!!!
Just because Hiram Johnson finagled us into the direct democrazy business, to blur our national founder based Representative Republic form of government, is no reason to now thow out the baby with the bathwater. We simply need to throw out the danged bathwater!!! (the direct democrazy asspects in spite of the public's love affair)
There's too much room for malicious political mischeif when you have two competing governmental systems operating in the same populace at the same time. It has take a relatively long time, but finally, we're beginning to see how it's making CA ungovernable.
The politicians don't need to exhibit any character or consistency, or even any accountability as a ballot measure is manipulate to absolve them of their sins! The ballot measure business has become the corrupt scheme for political consultants, consumerist attorneys pretending to be "populists" and activist... especially hords of leftist GovernMental Unionists and EnvironMentalists!!!
It's gotten absurd, yes even obscene and Walters is too chicken to suggest the best cures of repealing the direct democrazy aspects, repealing the full time legislature and revisiting the "Cows Don't Vote" erroneous ruling by the Earl Warren Court to restore a balanced legislature, not only in CA, but across the nation!!!
Note the reference to "Baker vs Carr" in the beginning of Maggie's article and in the last couple of lines in Reply #10, above.
Gray Davis represented a majority of our crumby legislature!!!
He is another one that thinks government should be run more like a business on a pragmatic basis, which is totally bogus!!!
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
California will continue to be ungovernable until we clean out the rats nest that Sacramento has become.
What we need is virtually a complete purge.
Pinckney, Randolph, Madison, and Hamilton's expressed a preference for a totally centralized national government with no states at all early in the convention, centralized command and control with minimal local government (which should go a long way toward killing the near-hero worship with which Hamilton and Madison are conferred). Hamilton went so far as to advocate both a unified parliamentary government and a "president for life." It was killed immediately.
As you know, all decisions in the Convention were by counted by state. They had to ratify the whatever document the Convention produced in order to amend or dissolve the Articles of Confederation. For the Constitution to authorize the power to the Federal government to dictate to the States what governments they should have was unacceptable to them, because the power to dictate the form of state governments is the power to dissolve them. The language of the section in question was a guarantee to them that each State would have its own government.
The Constitution, as a limiting document listing strictly enumerated powers, precludes the Federal government from assuming anything other than a Republican structure containing separate and distinct states with the guarantee that they would never be dissolved, IOW that the Federal government would remain a Republic. So the states accepted the guarantee that they would have Republican governments and in that respect my recollection was in error.
Here is the most pertinent section of Farrand's Record of the Federal Convention debate (as far as I recall, the only one where this was specifically discussed):
"He closed these remarks with a set of resolutions, fifteen in number, which he proposed to the convention for their adoption, and as leading principles whereon to form a new government. He candidly confessed, they were not calculated for a federal government. He meant a strong consolidated union, in which the idea of states should be nearly annihilated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 411 | Page image
"Mr. C. Pinckney, a member from South Carolina, added, that he had reduced his ideas of a new government to a system which he read, and confessed that it was grounded on the same principle as those resolutions.
"The 2d of June, 1787, Mr. Randolph displayed the views of the plan of Virginia, with respect to the executive branch of the union. He proposed the establishment of a directory of three -- dividing the states in three divisions, and taking an executive from each, chosen by the people and invested with extensive power. The idea was rejected by almost all the other delegates, and the principle of a single executive adopted.
"Mr. Madison, from Virginia, endeavoured to support the plan of that state in all its branches, and after a speech pronounced by Mr. Reed, to prove that the state-governments must sooner or later be at an end, and that therefore it was the duty of the convention to make the new national government as perfect as possible; he gave it as his opinion that when the convention agreed to the first resolve of having a national government it was then intended to operate to the exclusion of federal government, and that the more extensive the basis was made the greater would be the probability of duration, happiness and good order.
"Mr. James Wilson, from Pennsylvania, opposed the annihilation of the state-governments, and he represented that the freedom of the people and their local and internal good police depended on their existence in full vigour, and that it was not possible that a general government as despotick even as that of the Roman emperours, could be adequate to the government of North America.
"Mr. King, in the course of these debates, did not show himself averse to the state governments, but on the contrary, in opposition to Mr. Madison, who wanted the new constitution to be accepted by the people at large, he observed that as the people in every state, had tacitly agreed to a federal government, the legislature in every state had a right to confirm any alteration or amendment in it, and he supposed that the most eligible mode of approving the constitution would be a convention in every state.
"The 8th of June, Mr. C. Pinckney having moved that the National Legislature should have the power of negativing all the laws passed by the state legislatures, which they may deem improper, he was warmly supported by Mr. Madison, who insisted that the unlimited power in the general government of negativing the laws passed by the state-governments was absolutely necessary -- that it was the only attractive principle which would retain the centrifugal force, and that without it planets will fly from their orbits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 412 | Page image
"Mr. Gerry observed ironically, that he was not willing to take such a leap in the dark, and recommended to designate the power of the National Legislature, to which the negative ought to apply. Mr. Madison insisted, that nothing but the proposed system could restore the peace and harmony of the country. -- Mr. Pinckney's motion was lost, seven states against, and Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts for it.
"The 9th of June, the convention being engaged in the discussion of the right of suffrage by the number of inhabitants and not by states, Mr. Wilson having moved that the mode of representation of each of the states, ought to be from the number of its free inhabitants, and of every other description three-fifths to one free inhabitant, Mr. Madison agreed to fix accordingly, the standard of representation.
"On the question to fill up the blank of the duration of the first branch of the National Legislature, Mr. Madison was for three years, though Mr. Gerry was afraid that the people would be alarmed at that clause savouring of despotism.
"On the motion to fill up the blank of the duration of the second branch of the National Legislature, Mr. Madison was for seven years -- and declared, that considering this branch as a check on democracy, it could not be too strong.
"A plan opposed to the Virginia plan supported by Mr. Madison, having been presented by Mr. Patterson, the purpose of which was merely to amend the old confederacy, Mr. Madison attempted to have it rejected in toto; but Mr. Hamilton prevented it, and said, that he was not in sentiment with either plan -- that he supposed both might again be considered as federal plans, and being both fairly in committee be contracted so as to make a comparative estimate of the two.
"The 16th of June, Messrs. Lansing and Patterson, exposed all the inconveniences of the Virginia plan, and its dangerous tendency, after which Mr. Wilson stated as follows the two plans:
VIRGINIA
Proposes two branches in the Legislature.
JERSEY
A single legislative body. Legislative power derived from the state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 413 | Page image
No provision for the executive.
The legislature to legislate only on limited objects. The executive to have the power to compel obedience. "Mr. Hamilton's ideas were materially dissimilar to those two plans, and in an eloquent speech stigmatized them both. He did not approve the total abolition of the state-governments, but he wanted to reduce them to simple corporations, with very limited powers. He did not think that a federal government could suit this country; but still he pretended that he was at a loss to know what could be substituted for it; a republican form of government could not be perfect. But he would hold it, however, unwise to change it, though he considered the British form of government as the best model that the world ever produced. He wished that the convention could go the utmost length of republican principles, and thought that they would not deviate from it if they made the chief magistrate of the republick elective for life, and gave him the power of negativing all laws, of making war and peace with the advice of the Senate, and the sole direction of all military operations, &c. &c. He proposed also to appoint in each state an officer, to have a negative on all state-laws. He confessed that his plan and that from Virginia were very remote from the ideas of the people, and he admitted explicitly, that the Jersey plan was nearest to their expectations. He described the Virginia plan as being nothing but democracy, checked by democracy, or pork still, with a little change of the sauce!
"Mr. Madison did not relish at all the criticism of Mr. Hamilton, and in a long speech vindicated the Virginia system, and attempted to demonstrate its superiority over the Jersey plan.
"On a motion of Mr. King, the Jersey plan was rejected as inadmissible, seven states against it and four for it, including New York.
"The Committee then rose and reported again the Virginia plan.
"Mr. Wilson, on the first clause, represented, that it was not a desirable object to annihilate the state-governments.
"Mr. Hamilton corrected what he had said against those governments; but intimated that they ought to be reduced to a smaller scale.
"Mr. King observed, that none of the states could properly be called sovereign, being deprived of several sovereign rights, such as making peace and war; and that in reality the consolidation had already taken place by the articles of confederation.
"To compromise matters between the Virginia and the Jersey plan, Dr. Johnson, proposed, that the state-governments should be
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 414 | Page image
preserved, with some modification; and that the states, in their legislative capacity, should have the right to appoint the second branch of the National Legislature, in order to unite them with the general government.
"Messrs. Ellsworth and Johnson, spoke in favour of that modification, and observed that the state-legislature were more competent to make a judicious choice than the people at large for the second branch, where wisdom and firmness were wanted.
"Mr. Madison opposed that idea, and for his part, he persisted to apprehend the greatest danger from the state-governments; and he declared, that he was always inclined for a general government emanating from the people at large, and independent of any local authority. Finding, however, that the majority was against him, he proposed a postponement; but it was negatived, and the clause proposed by Dr. Johnson adopted.
"Mr. Madison, on the sub-question relative to the organization of the Senate, and the rotation in that branch, said, we are acting in the same manner as the confederation; and by the vote already taken, the temper of the state-legislatures will transfuse into the Senate.
The 26th of June, on the question of the continuance of the senators in office, the same Mr. Madison gave it as his opinion that the longer the senators remain in office, the better it will be for the stability and permanency of the government. Several members thought differently on that question, and proved that the longer the senators resided at the seat of government, the more they would become naturalized to its climate and habits; that they might even settle there, and forget their own state and its interest.
"The 26th, on a motion to strike out the clause declaring, that the senators of the union should be ineligible to any state office; Mr. Madison opposed it, and observed, that Congress had heretofore depended on state-interest, and that the convention was now pursuing the same plan. He was contradicted by Messrs. Pinckney and Butler, who observed, that the state and general governments must act together; that the Senate, or second branch, was the aristocratick part of our government, and that they must be controled by the states -- The motion for striking out was carried.
"The following motion was made by Mr. Lansing, of New York: -- That the representation of the second branch be according to the articles of confederation, that is to say, on federal principles of equality. A debate took place, in which Mr. Madison, supporting the Virginia plan, declared that the representation must not be on federal principles, but relative to the number of inhabitants. He
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 415 | Page image
was answered by several members, but particularly by Dr. Johnson, who observed, that the idea of destroying the state-governments having been over-ruled, the convention was to frame a government, not for the people of America, but for the political societies called states, which compose the union; and that they must, therefore, have a voice in the second branch, if it was meant to preserve their existence, the people composing already the first branch.
"Mr. Madison rose up against Dr. Johnson in defence of the Virginia plan, and supported the following dogmas; "that there is a gradation of power in all societies, from the lowest corporation to the highest sovereign; that the states never possessed the right of sovereignty; that they were only corporations having the power of making by-laws; that they ought to be still more under the control of the general government, at least as much as they were under the King and British government.
"Mr. Hamilton, without adopting the ideas of Mr. Madison, spoke against the motion of Mr. Lansing, which was lost, four states for and six against it.
"Judge Ellsworth then moved, as an amendment to the plan of Virginia, that in the second branch each state should have an equal vote: equality of votes being the principle on which all confederacies are formed.
"Mr. Madison refused to compromise, and exclaimed that the greatest danger for the general government would arise from the opposition of the northern interest of the continent to the southern interest: alluding to certain expressions of several members leaning towards a division of the union, if Mr. Madison's plan was not modified.
"Dr. Franklin recommended a compromise on that subject, and made, in his usual way, the following comparison: "when a joiner wants to fit two boards, he takes off with his plane the uneven parts from each side, and thus they fit: let us do the same, said he, and as an expedient he proposed, that the Senate be elected by the states equally." But Mr. Madison, considering, that by his plan the Senate was to be the greatest engine by which all the state-laws could be reversed and annulled, would consent to no arrangement that would deprive the large states of having in both branches a weight proportioned to their population.
"Mr. King recommended moderation, and was in sentiment with those who wished the preservation of the state-governments. The general government, in his opinion, could be constructed so as to effect that object. The new constitution must be considered as a commission under which the general government is to act, and as
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 416 | Page image
such be the guardian of the state-rights. Five states voted for the amendment, and five against it, and one state was divided, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Elsworth was lost.
Some argue that this autocratic "preference" among the Federalists was a foil designed to get the states to go along with a national government, to which many were opposed at all, preferring instead to amend the Articles of Confederation. Considering the slow accrual of centralized power that has continued from the moment the ink was dry on the Constitution, I'm not so sanguine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.