Modern America as a Parliamentary Democracy?

[garbon]

Yeah civil rights for minorities are pretty damn good in the US.

[alfred russel]

How many seats are in parliament? The more seats, the better the Democrats will due, simply due to geographical sorting benifiting the GOP.

[Razgovory]

Doesn't the parliamentary system of checks on power as well?

[Valmy]

Doesn't the parliamentary system of checks on power as well?

Parliament combines legislative, executive, and even judicial powers doesn't it?

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah civil rights for minorities are pretty damn good in the US.

Yeah, you have been gone for a while.

[garbon]

Doesn't the parliamentary system of checks on power as well?

Parliament combines legislative, executive, and even judicial powers doesn't it?

I believe that the judicial functions have been handing off to Supreme Court in UK now.

[Malthus]

Doesn't the parliamentary system of checks on power as well?

Yes, but they operate somewhat differently.

First and foremost, there is the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

This is why the current kerfuffle in the US is so baffling to those familiar with Parliamentary democracies - the notion that one man, the President, is effectively beyond the Rule of Law while he holds office is just weird. Under the US system, the "check and balance" is supposed to be Congress, who has the power to impeach him if he pulls shit like blatantly covering up having an unfriendly foreign government fuck with elections in his favor.

In Canada, and in many Parliamentary democracies, there is also the fact that the Prime Minister isn't also the head of state. In extreme and weird situations, the actual head of state (the Monarch's representative) can intervene to uphold the Rule of Law, preventing the PM from acting like a dictator, even if he or she has a massive majority in Parliament.   

[garbon]

Yeah civil rights for minorities are pretty damn good in the US.

Yeah, you have been gone for a while.

Pretty sure that minorities have a strong right...nay obligation to be civil in the US.

[CountDeMoney]

Pretty sure that minorities have a strong right...nay obligation to be civil in the US.

  If they know what's good for them, you bet your ass they do, Coltrane. 

[dps]

This is why the current kerfuffle in the US is so baffling to those familiar with Parliamentary democracies - the notion that one man, the President, is effectively beyond the Rule of Law while he holds office is just weird. Under the US system, the "check and balance" is supposed to be Congress, who has the power to impeach him if he pulls shit like blatantly covering up having an unfriendly foreign government fuck with elections in his favor.

That's a very odd view of the US government.  The President is hardly above the Rule of Law.  Look at how the courts have shut down the travel ban so far (though TBH, I'm not sure that the law isn't actually on the President's side on that one).

[CountDeMoney]

In the US Constitution's defense, it kinda took for granted we would never elect this kind of guy, or that a majority of Congress wouldn't want to do anything about him.  Oops.

[Zanza]

There are many parliamentarian systems besides the British Westminster one and all of them will have different strengths and weaknesses.

One of the most interesting ones is Switzerland's which has a collective head of government and of state which are however elected by a two cameral parliament. The seven members of the Swiss federal government are not members of parliament and they are also each heading one of the seven government departments. Who is the primus inter pares for international relations among them rotates yearly. 

[Malthus]

This is why the current kerfuffle in the US is so baffling to those familiar with Parliamentary democracies - the notion that one man, the President, is effectively beyond the Rule of Law while he holds office is just weird. Under the US system, the "check and balance" is supposed to be Congress, who has the power to impeach him if he pulls shit like blatantly covering up having an unfriendly foreign government fuck with elections in his favor.

That's a very odd view of the US government.  The President is hardly above the Rule of Law.  Look at how the courts have shut down the travel ban so far (though TBH, I'm not sure that the law isn't actually on the President's side on that one).

That's not the same thing at all.

The President's selected decrees may well be legally challenged.

The President, it would appear, may only be personally held accountable for bad behavior, while actually in office, by impeachment.

[Barrister]

Doesn't the parliamentary system of checks on power as well?

Yes, but they operate somewhat differently.

First and foremost, there is the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

This is why the current kerfuffle in the US is so baffling to those familiar with Parliamentary democracies - the notion that one man, the President, is effectively beyond the Rule of Law while he holds office is just weird. Under the US system, the "check and balance" is supposed to be Congress, who has the power to impeach him if he pulls shit like blatantly covering up having an unfriendly foreign government fuck with elections in his favor.

In Canada, and in many Parliamentary democracies, there is also the fact that the Prime Minister isn't also the head of state. In extreme and weird situations, the actual head of state (the Monarch's representative) can intervene to uphold the Rule of Law, preventing the PM from acting like a dictator, even if he or she has a massive majority in Parliament.

I don't think a Westminster system is any more or less likely to protect against a Trump-like figure.

The one extraordinary thing Trump has done is fired an FBI director because of a troublesome investigation.  But a Prime Minister would have the same ability to fire, say, the head of the RCMP.  Even if a commission or inquiry was established a PM could cancel that too.  The only thing preventing that from happening is custom and fear of public pressure.

[Malthus]

Doesn't the parliamentary system of checks on power as well?

Yes, but they operate somewhat differently.

First and foremost, there is the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

This is why the current kerfuffle in the US is so baffling to those familiar with Parliamentary democracies - the notion that one man, the President, is effectively beyond the Rule of Law while he holds office is just weird. Under the US system, the "check and balance" is supposed to be Congress, who has the power to impeach him if he pulls shit like blatantly covering up having an unfriendly foreign government fuck with elections in his favor.

In Canada, and in many Parliamentary democracies, there is also the fact that the Prime Minister isn't also the head of state. In extreme and weird situations, the actual head of state (the Monarch's representative) can intervene to uphold the Rule of Law, preventing the PM from acting like a dictator, even if he or she has a massive majority in Parliament.

I don't think a Westminster system is any more or less likely to protect against a Trump-like figure.

The one extraordinary thing Trump has done is fired an FBI director because of a troublesome investigation.  But a Prime Minister would have the same ability to fire, say, the head of the RCMP.  Even if a commission or inquiry was established a PM could cancel that too.  The only thing preventing that from happening is custom and fear of public pressure.

You are forgetting that the PM isn't the Head of State.

A Trump-like figure is somewhat less likely under our system because the actual head of state can, in such an extreme case where the PM is abusing his or her powers, exercise the "Reserve Powers" to force them to account.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power#Canada

Typically these powers are: to grant pardon; to dismiss a prime minister; to refuse to dissolve parliament; and to refuse or delay royal assent to legislation (to withhold royal assent amounts to a veto of a bill, while to reserve royal assent in effect amounts to a decision to neither grant nor refuse assent, but to delay taking a decision for an undetermined period). There are usually strict constitutional conventions concerning when these powers may be used, and these conventions are enforced by public pressure. Using these powers in contravention of tradition would generally provoke a constitutional crisis.

Most constitutional monarchies employ a system that includes the principle of responsible government. In such an order, the reserve powers are thought to be the means by which the monarch and his or her viceregal representatives can legitimately exist as "constitutional guardians" or "umpires", tasked with guaranteeing that Cabinet and parliament adhere to the fundamental constitutional principles of the rule of law and responsible government itself.[1] Some constitutional scholars, such as George Winterton, have stated that reserve powers are a good thing in that they allow for a head of state to handle an unforeseen crisis[2] and that the use of convention to limit the use of reserve powers allows for more gradual and subtle constitutional evolution than is possible through formal amendment of a written constitution. Others, such as Herbert Evatt, believe or believed that reserve powers are vestigial and potentially open to abuse.[2][3] Evatt felt that the reserve powers could be codified and still serve their intended function in a responsible government system,[3] as they do in Sweden, Ireland, and Japan.[2]

There isn't an equivalent in the US (other than impeachment).