Whenever we talk about the political system in this country it inevitably turns to the debate over democracy or republic…..when seldom is the strict definition implied rather it is general terms to describe the system we have once in awhile someone will inject the whole federalism thing in the debate.
Accuracy in the description is for academic debates for the average person we vote ergo we are a democracy.
The problem is with the group in DC today they are working to what can be called a unitary government.
About here I can imagine there is a whole bunch of huh going on.
Let me help out.
Unitary government is a kind of government system in which a single power, which is known as the central government, controls the whole government. In fact, all powers and administrative divisions authorities lies at the central place. Today most of the government systems in the world are based on unitary system of government. It is slightly different from
federal model of government. In unitary government, central government has the power to increase or curtail the power of subnational units. It can create and abolished the same. UK, Afghanistan, Italy, China, Saudi Arabia, Spain, etc., are the important examples of unitary government. The unitary government system is based on the concept of consistency, unity,
and identity that’s why the centralization of power and authority system remains at the top priority. The decision-making power rests with the central government that are shared by the government with the lower level government when needed. There are not so many
options for change and new innovation as the people have a very limited voice in this government system. There are many merits and demerits of unitary government. It is useful in the term that rules and regulations in this government systems remain consist and equal throughout the country. Moreover, it is less expensive as compared to the federal
government because the number of powerful people remains very low. In a time of emergency, it makes timely decisions as compared to the federal government system. But at the same time, the concept of freedom of speech and expression always remains at a low priority that’s why most of the principles of unitary government are much similar to that of dictatorship system of government.
It appears if the US is moving in this direction under Elmo and Donny.
Donald Trump‘s broad assertions of power appear to be advancing an aggressive version of a legal doctrine called the “unitary executive” theory that envisions vast executive authority for a president, setting up potential U.S. Supreme Court showdowns.The conservative theory’s advocates argue that Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which delineates presidential powers, gives the president sole authority over the federal government’s executive branch. It envisions robust powers even when Congress has sought to impose certain limits, such as restricting a president’s ability to fire the heads of some independent agencies.The Supreme Court is expected to be called upon to review at least one key legal dispute over the Republican president’s contentious actions implicating this doctrine, with numerous legal challenges already moving through lower courts.Trump’s firing of a member of the National Labor Relations Board, an independent executive branch agency created by Congress, may test the willingness of the nation’s top judicial body to embrace the robust view of the theory that Trump’s administration is expected to present. And the nine justices could be asked to overturn a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent that limits a president’s ability to dismiss certain agency heads.
It certainly looks needs some to step forward and prove the veterinary surgeon hasn’t got at them.
I don’t know how this will work out. The constitution says executive power shall vest in the president. That seems pretty clear. Congress would have the legislative power, the courts the judicial power, the president the executive power. We somehow got away from that.
Yes we have and there needs to be a course correction soon chuq
The UK does have a system of ‘devolved power’ that operates in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Those places have their own elected governments which can alter laws to suit their situations. They are funded by central government and also have members in the national parliament. But the State System operating in America is well-established, and sacrosanct to many people. I can imagine some serious resistance to that being changed. Best wishes, Pete.
I would hope the citizens would start demanding a correction…..but sadly I am be deluded. chuq
Not to worry, I believe the supreme court will give it all to the executive branch.. no brainer…..
Appears to be the case at least from their past rulings. chuq
I will ALWAYS defer to the Constitution. To me that means all the good, the crap, and the bad choices that can go along with it… according to the will (and whims) of the people. Just as we might prosper together as a nation we must also suffer together with the choices made according to our votes. The process right now is working as it should. We may not like it, we may hate it, and I am presently filling with rage over what is happening. BUT… the Constitution has as much remedy as it has legal holes to fill with some future Congress.. if the will is there to fill those holes to avoid another future maverick/renegade from taking excesses of office. At present we’ve not as a nation hit the moral bottom that might bring Congress around to act. I have no idea where that bottom is… but I will bet we will hit it very soon. Perhaps the smarter one’s behind the scenes should plan now for how best we recover from all this when this clown is out of the picture and MAGA is tossed back to the fringe where it belongs.
I am with you on the Constitution…..chuq
I agree that the U.S. might be edging toward a unitary government under Trump’s influence. His push for the unitary executive theory, claiming broad presidential control over the executive branch, mirrors unitary systems where a central authority dominates, like in the UK or China. Actions like firing protected agency heads suggest a consolidation of power, threatening the federal model’s checks and balances. While efficient in crises, this risks suppressing dissent, echoing authoritarianism. Yet, the Constitution’s design resists such a shift unless radically changed. Judicial and congressional resistance may hold, but the trend demands scrutiny to protect democracy.
I do not trust Congress no matter which party rules….and the judicial is a joke at this time. chuq