No Executive Branch

Well, I was curious what would be the state of politics in the United States if someone said "Hey, you know what if the President becomes a Ceaser? Perhaps we should just stick with the Legislature and Judical branches" and then it was only those two branches solving out the messes between the states.

EDIT: I mean what if this was done by the Founding Fathers.
 
Last edited:
Well, I was curious what would be the state of politics in the United States if someone said "Hey, you know what if the President becomes a Ceaser? Perhaps we should just stick with the Legislature and Judical branches" and then it was only those two branches solving out the messes between the states.

Since the time of Lincoln? Unlikely. The centralization of power in the Federal Government at the expense of the states was pretty much the drive of both the Whig Party and then the Republican Party.
 
Since the time of Lincoln? Unlikely. The centralization of power in the Federal Government at the expense of the states was pretty much the drive of both the Whig Party and then the Republican Party.

Very true. Samuel Tilden, the reformist New York Democrat who was IMO robbed of the Presidency in 1876, as early as 1871 gave a ringing speech pointing out the dangers of the centralizing thrust of the Republican Party policy. His position was that the Founders, and in particular Jefferson, would have resisted that tendency to the utmost. Now there's an interesting TL, if someone wanted to write it...
 
a parliamentary system would mean fewer types of checks and balances


it might mean less stability, more volatility, maybe.


I would wonder if a parliamentary system could work with a bicameral legislature without turning the senate or the house into something less or more powerful to an interesting but unbalanced extreme.

it could be done so that only the house initiates spending legislation, while the Senate provides the PM, or something or other.

could one house of the legislature impeach a PM seated in the other house?

the bicameral legislature was pretty important as a compromise for getting the states to agree on strengthening the central government (with the constitution.)

maybe the PM should be from the house of representatives, and, I dunno, certain "cabinet" positions filled exclusively from the senate? but then the PM should be able to dismiss cabinet members, in my personal opinion.


then again, who could say that a unicameral "parliament" system couldn't be approved with a different kind of compromise agreed on to mollify both big and small states. maybe some states would end up getting split into two or more pieces so that small states wouldn't feel kind of endangered by a population-based representative body.
 
Hm...that would be odd, considering that the US has two equally powerful legislative chambers, compared to (most) parliamentary systems where one house (if there is more than one, that is) is clearly dominant.

It would be interesting, to say the least. I'm with Claudius. Someone should really write a TL based on this...
 
a parliamentary system would mean fewer types of checks and balances


it might mean less stability, more volatility, maybe.


I would wonder if a parliamentary system could work with a bicameral legislature without turning the senate or the house into something less or more powerful to an interesting but unbalanced extreme.

it could be done so that only the house initiates spending legislation, while the Senate provides the PM, or something or other.

could one house of the legislature impeach a PM seated in the other house?

the bicameral legislature was pretty important as a compromise for getting the states to agree on strengthening the central government (with the constitution.)

maybe the PM should be from the house of representatives, and, I dunno, certain "cabinet" positions filled exclusively from the senate? but then the PM should be able to dismiss cabinet members, in my personal opinion.


then again, who could say that a unicameral "parliament" system couldn't be approved with a different kind of compromise agreed on to mollify both big and small states. maybe some states would end up getting split into two or more pieces so that small states wouldn't feel kind of endangered by a population-based representative body.

It's very unlikely any post called a Prime Minister would emerge early on given the British example. Somebody might seize de facto executive control, but it wouldn't be a P.M.
 
It's very unlikely any post called a Prime Minister would emerge early on given the British example. Somebody might seize de facto executive control, but it wouldn't be a P.M.

Probably the Secretary of the Treasury - in many governments the Finance Minister evolved to be the most important position.

Even if there were strictly a cabinet or council made up of various departmental secretaries there would have to be a 'first among equals'. Of course there could be a rotating chairmanship.

I would consider that without an Executive the most likely next powerful position would be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
 
for the US govt, without the executive branch, the legislative branch would become enforcer and writer of law. the judicial branch would, I presume, still be reviewer of law.

title-wise, the "PM" equivalent could be "Grand Senator," "Presiding Representative," "Directing Er Something Or Other," or just use an existing title without elaborating on the extra extra responsibilities and duties the person would have, like, majority leader or something like that.
 
Parliamentary Society

a parliamentary system would mean fewer types of checks and balances


it might mean less stability, more volatility, maybe.


I would wonder if a parliamentary system could work with a bicameral legislature without turning the senate or the house into something less or more powerful to an interesting but unbalanced extreme.

it could be done so that only the house initiates spending legislation, while the Senate provides the PM, or something or other.

could one house of the legislature impeach a PM seated in the other house?

the bicameral legislature was pretty important as a compromise for getting the states to agree on strengthening the central government (with the constitution.)

maybe the PM should be from the house of representatives, and, I dunno, certain "cabinet" positions filled exclusively from the senate? but then the PM should be able to dismiss cabinet members, in my personal opinion.


then again, who could say that a unicameral "parliament" system couldn't be approved with a different kind of compromise agreed on to mollify both big and small states. maybe some states would end up getting split into two or more pieces so that small states wouldn't feel kind of endangered by a population-based representative body.
The one time I wish the United States had a parliamentaty goverenment was when Watergate related matters were being investagated. Richard Nixom would have to have faced questions during question period.
 
about the question
I'm not an expert in USA history or Constitution, but the executive and administrative functions of any government are going to be exercised for someone, so if you have not a de jure executive branch you will have a de facto one without the checks and balances of the USA Constitution, whit all the dangers of that.
How much power an executive branch must have is a very different question. (I'm from Chile and here in my country we have a super powerful Presidency)
 
You're going to have to clarify: do you mean no separation of powers between the legislative or executive branches or no executive branch period. The former is generally a Westminster/Cabinet parliament system of legislature, while the latter would be really chaotic (assuming an open agenda setting).

Alexander Hamilton proposed what was essentially a Westminster system, and iirc it had a fair bit of support among delegates. However the consensus was it felt too British. Have someone like Washington or another big-time patriot through his weight to it and perhaps it gets adopted.

In very short layman's terms, it means parties are less decentralized and there's likely room for a few more than at present in the U.S.
 
Top