Each state has it's own constitution, and each state is run as a democratic/republic.
Is this necessary?
Let's suppose that Arnold does really great in California. So great, that the *vast* majority (let's say 85%) of people and politicians want him to run their state forever. They modify their constitution so that Arnold is set up as supreme monarch of California, and the legislature is turned into an advisory council.
Arnold governs california, dictating its laws. Laws that are deemed unconstitutional (according to California's new constituion) are thrown out by the judges, just like before. Laws that are deemed as unconstitutional according to the US constitution are also thrown out.
Not that this would ever happen, but if it did, would it be legal?
I guess the question is how much freedom do the states have to run things their way?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution: "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."
So no, it would not be legal without an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
posted
I'm not exactly sure about the details, but I think that it would actually be illegal for a state to declare a Monarch. Doing so, I believe, would go against the Federal Constitution, which every state had to agree to follow when entering the union. In order for California to declare a Monarch, they would have to secede from the US. I think that MAY still be possible, but I can't remember if the anti-secession laws written after the Civil War apply only to the states that were in the Confederacy.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The states that took part in the Civil war certainly are not allowed to secede legally anymore. I don't know about the rest...
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I guess putting a monarch in California would be considered an act of rebellion and the whole thing should just be forgotten about right now then huh? Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think it is odd that in a country that was created in order to avoid a monarchy, there are families that are not only hugely rich and influential but can also be elected, almost like a succession.
The Kennedy Family The Clinton Family The Bush Family
It is a phenomenon elsewhere too, but I think it stands out more in the US because of the well-known ideas that the US was originally founded on.
posted
Well, Senator OrrinHatch (R.Utah) and many others are trying to amend the Constitution for ArnoldSchwartzenegger. Why would he wanna settle for KingArnie of California when he could more easily become EmperorArnold of the American Empire?
Do you have any examples?! I would be very interested to know about them! In Romania it doesn't happen - really, you almost never hear about the families of the candidates -, nor in France I think, or in Germany...
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Gandhi family of India: JawaharlalNehru, his daughter IndiraGandhi, her son RajivGandhi, his widow SoniaGandhi is the head of the IndiaNationalCongressParty. Though having ambitions to hold the PrimeMinistership herself, she is primarily seen (due to her foreign birth) as a trustee holding the political reins for her son RahulGandhi and daughter PriyankaGandhi until they are old enough and experienced enough to claim their inheritance.
posted
It may also be bcause getting elected has a lot to do with who you know. People without any connections have a much more difficult time getting funding for elections, support for campaigns, etc. If my dad was a Senator, not only have I almost certainly gone to a politics feeder school (i.e. Harvard or Yale) but I also have connections in the party and name recognition with potential constituents.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the very system, the very "who you know" system, I realise that is a huge thing in politics but doesn't it stagnate the pool from which politicians are coming?
You can either have connections or be famous through some other medium. It is a bonus to have some sort of military record. It must be very difficult for even the partial-scholarship-winning, middle-income son or daughter to imagine holding the office of President, let alone a low-income family son or daughter.
I don't know... it just bugs me. I know that connections and money are often things inextricably linked with politics, but I feel like it's... wrong.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
