U.S. State Government Adopting Parliamentary System

[beneficii]

What if say California were to adopt a (republican) parliamentary system?  Like say, where the governor is elected, but he/she is powerless and just appoints a cabinet from the majority party or coalition in the legislature, and dissolves the legislature on the advice of the state's prime minister and calls for new elections?  And of course where the legislature would have a maximum amount of time it could serve?

I wonder if that would be constitutional.

[beneficii]

What if say California were to adopt a (republican) parliamentary system?  Like say, where the governor is elected, but he/she is powerless and just appoints a cabinet from the majority party or coalition in the legislature, and dissolves the legislature on the advice of the state's prime minister and calls for new elections?  And of course where the legislature would have a maximum amount of time it could serve?

I wonder if that would be constitutional.

Looking at history, it seems that South Carolina had something of a parliamentary system leading up to the civil war, in which the legislature appointed the governor, the cabinet, the judges, the presidential electors, everybody.  Still, that was so long ago, I'm not sure the constitutionality would still hold up today.

[J. J.]

I think it would be.  The requirement is a "republican form of government," and you could have one with a weak executive.  Considering the variation in power of governors, currently, it would not be a stretch.

[WillK]

Sure.   Why not?  You wrote that it would be "(republican)".

What if say California were to adopt a (republican) parliamentary system?  Like say, where the governor is elected, but he/she is powerless and just appoints a cabinet from the majority party or coalition in the legislature, and dissolves the legislature on the advice of the state's prime minister and calls for new elections?  And of course where the legislature would have a maximum amount of time it could serve?

I wonder if that would be constitutional.

[J. J.]

Sure.   Why not?  You wrote that it would be "(republican)".

What if say California were to adopt a (republican) parliamentary system?  Like say, where the governor is elected, but he/she is powerless and just appoints a cabinet from the majority party or coalition in the legislature, and dissolves the legislature on the advice of the state's prime minister and calls for new elections?  And of course where the legislature would have a maximum amount of time it could serve?

I wonder if that would be constitutional.

Sorry corrected it.  It would not be a stretch.

There are some "weak Governors" out there, whose executive powers are curtailed.

[I Am Feeblepizza.]

Yes, it would be constitutional due to it being a republican system. Besides, there are already plenty of weak governors out there. In Texas, for example, the lieutenant governorship is a better position than the governorship when it comes to pushing programs through the legislature. In Indiana, the legislature can reassign statutory power from the governor to other department heads, rendering the governor essentially powerless. So it's not that much a stretch, really.

[Peter the Lefty]

I wish the US would adopt that as a whole.

[Simfan34]

This seems like something Nebraska or Vermont would try. It's always been an idea of mine to have a "State of Plymouth", a surviving Plymouth Colony, that would have all kinds of pusedo-English idiosyncrasies : a state parliament, a Lord Governor, Law Lords, a multi-party system, ministers, all re-adapted for a republic, of course.

[Jerseyrules]

What about state monarchy?  An emperor/king/queen who is not elected but is allowed to veto or pass legislation, with no other powers?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What about state monarchy?  An emperor/king/queen who is not elected but is allowed to veto or pass legislation, with no other powers?

Explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution not just once, but twice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.