憲法如何辜負了美國,英國的製度更擅長阻止暴政。
Unherd 標誌
家 使命 編輯部 我們的作者 觀看和收聽 活動 店鋪 UnHerd俱樂部
搜尋:
搜尋:
總統制,議會制,獨立宣言,憲法,阻止暴政
憲法如何辜負了美國
《美國憲法簽署儀式》，喬治華盛頓、班傑明富蘭克林和湯瑪斯傑佛遜在1787年制憲會議上簽署憲法；霍華德錢德勒克里斯蒂於1940年創作的布面油畫。這幅畫尺寸為20英尺乘30英尺，現懸掛於美國國會大廈。 （圖片來源：GraphicaArtis／Getty Images）
亞歷山大·漢密爾頓美國250唐納川普聯邦制詹姆斯麥迪遜基爾·斯塔默托馬斯·傑斐遜美國憲法
在 Facebook 分享 分享至 X 透過電子郵件分享
麥可·林德
麥可·林德
2026年6月29日 - 凌晨12:00 7 分鐘
美國250
下個月，美國人將紀念《獨立宣言》發表250週年，該宣言旨在擺脫英國的統治。儘管現行的美國憲法於1787年起草，1788年獲得批准，並於1789年首次實施，但在今年夏天的周年紀念活動中，我們可以預見，人們將廣泛讚揚憲法的精妙之處，以及托馬斯·杰斐遜為《獨立宣言》所作序言的雄辯之詞。
別信這話。雖然美國憲法在當時是個里程碑，但它有許多缺陷。當今最成功的民主國家在製定各自更新的國家憲法時，都吸取了美國的錯誤教訓。虔誠的美國愛國者有時會說「建國先賢們建造的憲法比他們想像的要好」。但實際上，建國先賢們把事情搞砸了。
考慮目前的兩個爭議：
一是川普總統拆除白宮東翼建造官方宴會廳；
二是最高法院介入維吉尼亞州的黨派國會選區重劃。在一個擁有完善憲法的國家，這兩件事都不會引發爭議，因為權力界線會劃分清晰明確。
二是最高法院介入維吉尼亞州的黨派國會選區重劃。在一個擁有完善憲法的國家，這兩件事都不會引發爭議，因為權力界線會劃分清晰明確。
美國總統，身為行政官邸的臨時居住者，能否僅憑一時興起，就下令拆除並重建大部分官邸，而且重建方案還由他一人批准，資金來源也由私人而非公共部門承擔？這顯然是一個技術性問題，一部完善的憲法應該對此有明確規定。國會在哈里·杜魯門總統任期內授權並撥款進行了白宮的最後一次大規模翻修。根據國會通過的法律，重大翻修工程理應事先經過國家首都規劃委員會（NCPC）和其他機構的審查和批准。
但川普在向國家城市規劃委員會（NCPC）尋求批准之前，就下令拆除了白宮的大部分建築。而他最終獲得批准，是在一位聯邦法官介入阻止施工，以及他安插親信擔任委員會成員之後。川普在國會的共和黨盟友試圖為正在進行的拆除工程提供資金，但這一舉動違反了議會關於預算協調程序下撥款法案內容的規則。
作者的其他作品
一位美國傳統人士的自白
作者：邁克爾·林德
憲法要么允許現任總統單方面自行改造華盛頓特區的建築和景觀，要么不允許。如果川普確實擁有憲法賦予的權力，可以自行拆除白宮三分之一的建築，那麼未來的總統加文紐森或卡馬拉哈里斯是否可以拆除華盛頓紀念碑並取而代之？
進步派民主黨人和右翼共和黨人都會在符合自身利益時，對憲法賦予的權力歸屬提出極端主張。 4月21日，維吉尼亞州選民在全民公投中批准了一項由維吉尼亞州民主黨人提出的方案，該方案旨在透過操縱選區劃分來確保民主黨在該州聯邦眾議院代表團中佔據多數席位。然而，該州最高法院隨後裁定該方案非法，理由是其修改州憲法的程序不當。聯邦最高法院一致拒絕複審並推翻維吉尼亞州最高法院的裁決。
這些案例分別說明了美國聯邦憲法的一個重大設計缺陷：白宮宴會廳事件體現了權力分立原則；維吉尼亞州選區劃分案體現了美國獨特的聯邦制。
建國先賢們，願他們安息，他們信奉著18世紀一種古老的理論：
維護民主和公民自由需要將行政權、立法權和司法權分配給不同的、獨立的、平等的政府部門。這種理論是錯誤的。
我們知道它是錯的，
因為英國和其他主要的英語國家——加拿大、澳大利亞和紐西蘭——都實行議會制，
行政權由首相行使，而首相本身也是立法機構的成員，
英國君主則只是像徵性的元首。
如果美國建國先賢們關於權力分立的理論是正確的，
那麼英國、加拿大、澳洲和紐西蘭就應該是不民主、不自由的政權，
由權力至上的立法獨裁政權統治。
事實上，與美國建國理論相反的是，當今世界大多數其他民主國家實行議會製或混合製，而非基於權力分立的美式總統制。建國先賢們雖然無疑是偉大的務實政治家，但在這根本問題上卻犯了錯。
“參議院是世界上任何國家中席位分配最不合理的立法機構。”
更糟的是，正如政治學家胡安·林茨所論證的那樣，在總統制國家，自由和民主比在議會制國家更容易受到威脅。原因在於，在總統制國家，獨立選舉產生的總統可以聲稱擁有與立法機構同等的權力，而且在憲政僵局中，總統更有可能獲得軍隊和內政部門的效忠。相反，在總統制國家，立法機構罷免獨立選舉產生的總統的唯一方法是彈劾。
在議會制國家，當首相所在的政黨或聯盟失去議會多數席次時，首相就會下台。在兩次大選之間，如果首相不退出政壇，其他議員可以透過不信任投票或其他類似措施將其罷免，使其再次淪為普通議員。不妨問問基爾·斯塔默就知道了。這種模式使得彈劾首相變得毫無必要。
因此，
總統制下的權力分立更有可能導致民主崩潰，而不是阻止民主崩潰。
2021年1月6日，在川普錯誤地聲稱喬·拜登竊取了選舉結果後，
「讓美國再次偉大」（MAGA）的支持者為了阻止選舉人團結果的批准，洗劫了美國國會大廈，迫使國會議員逃離現場。
2023年1月8日，在另一位右翼民粹主義者雅伊爾·博索納羅敗選巴西總統後，
博索納羅的支持者闖入並破壞了位於巴西首都巴西利亞的總統府、立法機構和最高法院，而這些建築所在的區域正是——不出所料——三權廣場。
與之形成鮮明對比的是，今年4月10日，
當另一位右翼民粹主義者維克托·歐爾班的政黨在匈牙利議會中淪為少數派時，歐爾班大方地辭去了總理職務。
在匈牙利的議會制度下，他別無選擇。
他不能自詡為匈牙利人民的唯一代言人，因為他從未直接當選，只是在所屬政黨擁有議會多數席位時由其推選而出。
誠然，歷史上也出現過一些實際上成為獨裁者的總理，例如印度的英迪拉·甘地，她在1975年至1977年長達21個月的緊急狀態期間以專製手段統治。但在1977年，甘地在選舉中遭遇挫敗，失去了她在議會的席位，但她隨後又重新選舉，並在1980年至1984年再次擔任總理。
在土耳其，雷傑普·塔伊普·艾爾多安（2003年至2014年擔任總理）只有在土耳其新憲法頒布、將議會制改為總統制後，才得以鞏固其威權統治。
感謝美國的建國先賢們！
推薦閱讀
美國能否擺脫種族問題？
作者：格倫勞裡
因此，美式總統制在其他國家以及美國，助長了行政首腦攫取權力的行為，而對總統的製約僅限於立法機關的彈劾和司法裁決，總統也可能無視這些裁決（正如安德魯·傑克遜在最高法院令他不滿時所說的那樣，“約翰·馬歇爾已經做出了他的決定，現在就讓他去執行吧！”）。
儘管權力分立本身就是一個潛在的憲政危機，但美國從其睿智開明的建國先賢那裡繼承來的聯邦體制卻一團糟。
根據1787年憲法，各州及其公民的權力本應透過兩種方式免受聯邦政府的侵犯：
一是州政府和聯邦政府之間明確的權力劃分；
二是各州作為獨立的法人實體，擁有兩名參議員，這些參議員最初由州議會選舉產生。然而，自建國以來，美國憲法的這兩個部分都已失效。
我們現在看到的並非像雙層蛋糕一樣，州政府和聯邦政府職責分明，而是像酥粒蛋糕一樣，聯邦、州和地方政府在特定領域交織、融合。這種融合很大程度上源於聯邦政府對州和地方計畫的資助，包括像醫療補助計劃（Medicaid）這樣的聯邦-州混合計畫。例如，聯邦交通部除了資助聯邦州際公路的建設外，還為地方自行車道和人行道的部分建設提供資金。
原因很簡單。
當某項政策的倡議者無法在市議會或州議會層級取得勝利時，
他們往往會在國會尋找盟友，以獲得資金或強制執行其支持的方案，全然不顧聯邦制。
無論是右翼還是左翼的利益集團，都樂於在各級政府之間遊走，直到找到一個能夠滿足他們需求的層級。以州權為名，反墮胎保守派要求最高法院將墮胎政策的製定權交還給各州，並在2022年最高法院推翻「羅訴韋德案」時取得了成功。同時，在財力雄厚的科技投資者的壓力下，川普政府試圖透過聯邦層級禁止各州對人工智慧進行監管。就美國的聯邦製而言，兩黨和所有派別的運作理論是：無論他們及其盟友控制哪個層級的政府，都有權執行他們想要的政策。
美國憲法中對各州的第二項保護——每個州選出兩名參議員——早已失去了意義。最初，美國參議員由各州議會選舉產生，其理論基礎是參議員代表各州的政治實體。但1913年的第十七修正案打破了這個結構，規定美國參議員與眾議員一樣，由公民直接選舉產生。
然而，儘管每次人口普查後都會根據人口增長情況以及有時存在的黨派劃分不公正情況調整眾議院的選區劃分，
但每個州無論人口多少都擁有兩名參議員的規定，卻是美國憲法缺陷的一部分，無法更改。
結果是，參議院成為世界上任何國家中席位分配最不合理的立法機構。懷俄明州約有59萬居民，其選民在參議院的政治影響力卻是擁有3,900萬居民的加州的66倍。這就是美國憲法的精妙之處！
「21世紀理性的建國者會認為，在議會制政體下，民主的穩定性和延續性更有可能得到保障。”
今天，任何國家的領導人在起草民主憲法時，會想到「讓我們照搬美國憲法，建立一個兩院制，讓其中一個立法機構的議員人數與選民人數之比高達66比1」嗎？在剛實現民主的伊朗或中國，制憲會議會選擇總統制嗎？在總統制下，一位獨立選舉產生的總統，不受立法機構的限制，可以隨意將國家拖入對外戰爭，或者未經立法機構授權，用私人資金拆毀或建造首都的國家紀念碑。答案是否定的。
21世紀理性的締造者會下結論：議會制比美式總統制更能保障民主的穩定與延續。
麥迪遜、華盛頓、富蘭克林、漢密爾頓以及1787年制憲會議的其他成員，都是愛國者、勇敢者、博學之士、深思熟慮者，並且具有公德心。他們無疑是偉人。然而不幸的是，在尋求全國性自治模式時，他們所能藉鏡的只有古代、中世紀和近代的城邦、聯盟以及早期議會制的英國君主制。鑑於當時可參考的先例寥寥無幾，又需要妥協以維繫搖搖欲墜的聯邦，美國憲法的起草者們盡了全力。但他們犯了錯。美國人是時候承認這一點了。
70則 評論
😭😭😭😭😭😭😭🥳🥳
正如古人以及我們憲法與國家的開國元勳所知，所有民主政體與共和政體終將失敗。
唯一的希望在於，一個受過教育的社會能夠掌控其從民主、無政府狀態到暴政等各階段的過渡。
羅馬共和國歷經共和、元首制、帝國統治等階段，最終為我們帶來了基督教西方文明。
我不確定我們能否做得同樣出色。
我並非說民主在整體上，以及從長遠來看，比君主制或貴族制更具危害性。
民主從來沒有、也永遠不可能像貴族制或君主制那樣持久；但在其存續期間，它比這兩者都更加血腥。……
請記住，民主從來不會長久。它很快就會自我消耗、自我耗盡，並自我毀滅。
迄今為止，還沒有哪個民主政體沒有自取滅亡的。
若說民主比貴族制或君主制更不虛榮、更不驕傲、更不自私、更不野心勃勃、或更不貪婪，那純屬徒勞。
事實上，這並非事實，歷史上也從未出現過這樣的例子。在所有簡單的政體形式下，這些激情在所有人心中都是一樣的，一旦不受制約，就會產生欺詐、暴力和殘酷等相同後果。
當虛榮、傲慢、貪婪或野心面前，出現了能輕易滿足這些慾望的明確前景時，即便是最深思熟慮的哲學家和最良知深厚的道德家，也難以抗拒這種誘惑。
個人或許能戰勝自我，但國家與龐大群體，卻從未成功。」
——約翰·亞當斯，《約翰與阿比蓋爾·亞當斯書信集》
🥳🥳
如果你把英國的議會制度視為典範，那麼英國近期的歷史並沒有任何跡象顯示它比美國體制更勝一籌。
首相輪換制度並沒有改善英國的經濟或民眾的生活水平（如今英國的生活水平與最貧困的州密西西比州不相上下），無論你是否認為脫歐是一件好事，其執行過程的混亂不堪都是不言而喻的。
美國國會由兩院組成：
眾議院的議員人數根據各州人口數量分配，參議院的議員人數則根據各州的代表人數而定。
需要注意的是，美國是一個憲政共和國，
而非多數民主制國家，」參議院的平等代表制旨在防止少數幾個大州壟斷權力，從而有效剝奪小州的選舉權，確保立法過程中充分考慮地區因素。
有人可能會認為，推翻總統否決所需的絕對多數票過高，但實際上這很少成為問題。我可以列舉許多我希望看到的美國憲法修正案，但就目前而言，我認為它比任何其他現有的製度都更可取。
🥳🥹
作者的大部分觀點都是正確的，
尤其是在參議院問題上，人口較少的州和人口較多的州擁有相同數量的參議員。
此外，總統在兩黨制下擁有過大的權力，他可以否決任何他想否決的法案，而推翻否決需要絕對多數票，在目前這種兩黨分治的體制下，幾乎不可能做到這一點。
參議院的彈劾程序也是如此。
議會制絕不會允許總理擁有如此大的權力，
原因有二：
一是大多數議會制國家都有不止兩個政黨，通常是四五個；
二是總理也是議員，與其他議員擁有相同的投票權，如果總理試圖濫用權力，很容易被本黨成員罷免。
在議會制下，川普絕不逍遙法外地濫用權力，其他政黨、議員和公眾絕對不會容忍這種行為。
在議會制下，川普如果試圖推翻選舉結果，早就銼鐺入獄了。
我認為開國元勳們並沒有預料到像川普這樣的人會成為總統，因為他們都是通情達理的人。
🥹🥹🥹
中文翻譯：
昌西·加德納
4天前
「如果美國開國元勛對三權分立的理解是正確的，那麼英國、加拿大、澳洲和紐西蘭就應該是民主崩壞、缺乏自由、被全能立法獨裁統治的政權。」
開國元勛們幾乎是正確的。他們將「三權分立」這個概念實際運作的方式，與施行民法傳統（civil code tradition）的政體所設想的 séparation des pouvoirs 有著明顯區別。
民法傳統會保護行政國家（administrative state）不受司法審查，也不受非專業行政首長的干涉。這就是民法傳統中「分權」的含義：讓行政國家能自行其是，不受外部干擾。
但在普通法（common law）傳統中，三權分立所設想的是「制衡」（checks and balances）。它為嚴格的司法審查留下了空間：私人當事人更有能力迫使行政機關在第三方（法院）面前說明理由。因此，司法審查就會產生「法官造法」。而民法傳統則為「官僚造法」開闢道路。
請選擇你的毒藥！
此翻譯盡量保留原文的正式學術語氣與精準含義，如有需要更口語化或更正式的版本，請再告訴我。
❓❓❓❓❓❓
民法傳統（Civil Code Tradition / Civil Law Tradition）的政體與特點
1. 什麼是民法傳統？
民法傳統（又稱大陸法系、羅馬法系）是指以成文法典為核心的法律體系，主要源自古羅馬法，後經法國《拿破崙法典》（1804年）整理和傳播。它強調：
法律由立法機關制定成明確的法典（Code）。
法官主要負責「適用法律」，而非「創造法律」（與普通法傳統的法官造法不同）。
行政權（行政國家）相對獨立，受司法干預較少，這就是原文提到的「séparation des pouvoirs」在民法傳統中的含義。
2. 典型採用民法傳統的國家/政體
民法傳統主要分布在以下地區和國家（多為民主共和制或議會制）：
地區/國家
主要政體形式
備註
法國
半總統制共和國
民法傳統的代表，拿破崙法典發源地
德國
議會制聯邦共和國
高度發達的行政法體系
義大利、西班牙、葡萄牙
議會制共和國
南歐典型
日本
議會制君主立憲制
明治維新後引入德國式民法
韓國、台灣
總統制 / 半總統制
受德、日影響
拉丁美洲多數國家（巴西、墨西哥、阿根廷等）
總統制共和國
受法國、西班牙影響
中國大陸
社會主義一黨領導的共和制
屬於社會主義民法體系，但本質仍為成文法典傳統
俄羅斯
總統制共和國
混合民法傳統
3. 與原文討論的關聯
在民法傳統下，行政國家（官僚體系） 權力較大，司法審查相對較弱或有明確界限。這讓行政機關能更有效率地制定和執行規則（所謂「官僚造法」）。
這與普通法傳統（Common Law，主要英美法系：英國、美國、加拿大、澳洲、紐西蘭等）形成對比。普通法更強調司法制衡、法官審查行政行為，因此產生較多的「法官造法」。
4. 小結
民法傳統本身不等於特定政體（不是專指獨裁或民主），它是一種法律體系。目前採用民法傳統的國家大多是民主國家，但其制度設計傾向讓立法權 + 行政權擁有較強的主導性，司法權則較為「被動」。
如果你想深入了解特定國家（如法國或德國的行政法）、與普通法的詳細對比，或是中國屬於哪一類的細節，歡迎再問！
❓❓❓❓❓❓
**「séparation des pouvoirs」是什麼？**
這是法文，中文通常翻譯為**「權力分立」** 或 **「三權分立」**。
### 1. **基本含義**
- **Séparation des pouvoirs** = **Separation of Powers**（權力分立）
- 最早由法國啟蒙思想家**孟德斯鳩**（Montesquieu）在其著作《論法的精神》（1748年）中系統提出。
- 核心理念：**將國家權力分成不同的分支，互相制衡，避免權力集中於一人或單一機關而導致專制**。
### 2. **傳統三權分立**
根據孟德斯鳩的理論，國家權力應分為：
1. **立法權**（Legislative Power）—— 制定法律
2. **行政權**（Executive Power）—— 執行法律
3. **司法權**（Judicial Power）—— 解釋法律、審判案件
這三權應由不同機關行使，並相互監督制衡。
### 3. **在不同法律傳統中的差異（重要！）**
這正是前文討論的重點：
- **在民法傳統（Civil Law，大陸法系）中**：
- 「séparation des pouvoirs」強調**立法權與行政權的明確分離**。
- 特別保護**行政權**的獨立性，讓專業官僚（行政國家）能有效運作，不受司法過度干預。
- 結果：行政機關有較大的空間制定規則（行政命令、規章），司法審查相對有限 → 傾向「官僚造法」。
- **在普通法傳統（Common Law，英美法系）中**：
- 雖然也接受三權分立，但更強調**checks and balances（制衡）**。
- 司法權非常強大，可對行政行為進行嚴格審查（Judicial Review）。
- 結果：法官常介入，產生較多「法官造法」。
### 4. **實際例子**
- **法國**：典型的民法傳統國家，雖然有三權分立，但行政法院系統獨立，行政權受到較強保護。
- **美國**：普通法傳統 + 嚴格的憲法三權分立與制衡，最高法院可宣告國會法律或行政命令違憲。
**簡單總結**：
「séparation des pouvoirs」是現代憲政的核心原則，但不同國家、不同法律傳統對它的**實踐方式**差異很大。民法傳統更注重「功能分離 + 行政自主」，普通法傳統則更注重「相互制衡 + 司法監督」。
需要我再詳細解釋孟德斯鳩的原意、或與美國憲法三權分立的對比嗎？
❓❓❓🥹😊😊
❓❓❓
最新的
傑弗瑞·比斯
2天前
The constitution didn't fail, the GOP replaced it with their unitary executive and tje conservatives on the SCOTUS refuse to adhere to it, for example Dobbs is unconstitutional because Article III, Section 2 restricts their authority to law and equity, not rights. So, Trump commits high crimes because the criminal GOP congress refuses to impeach and remove him while the criminal GOP SCOTUS provides unconstitutional rulings.
Of course, this criminal government was elected by a morally bankrupt and self-centered American electorate. We are ultimately to blame.
1
0
回覆
格倫比亞西
4天前
Nonsense. Somehow we are being asked to believe that a proper national constitution would describe construction project scope? The Virginia example is wrong on the facts. Using debatable particulars to blame the whole constitutional enterprise is just lazy. Suppose we started fro another set of particulars: A proper parliamentary system would know how to keep grooming gangs from running their cities. And would not jail citizens for telling inconvenient truths about it. In my observation Parliamentary systems have been a model of instability. Consider the ridiculous bedfellows one courts in order to gain a majority. And the veto given minority parties.
America is very far from its founding because of Wilsonian "progressivism" and the attendant "expert class". Britain and the Eurozone labor under the same "progressive" delusion. It is only progress if tends to the health and strength of its people. Free people will choose better, smarter, sooner, and to greater effect than any of these governmental "solutions". The original model was quite good, and smarter than anything since, including the distorted version we live under today.
6
3
回覆
昌西·加德納
4天前
"If the Founders had been right about the separation of powers, then Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand should be undemocratic, illiberal regimes dominated by an all-powerful legislative dictatorship."
The Founders were almost right. They operationalized a concept of the separation of powers quite distinct from the séparation des pouvoirs contemplated by polities operating out of civil code traditions. The civil code tradition insulates the administrative state from judicial review and meddling by non-expert executives. That's what séparation means in the civil code tradition: enable the administrative state to do its thing without external interference. But, in the common law tradition, the separation of powers contemplates "checks and balances." It makes accommodation for serious judicial review: private parties are better situated to force administrative agencies to make their case in front of a third party (the court). Judicial review thus makes for "judge-made" law. The civil code tradition makes way for bureaucrat-made law. Choose your poison!
2
0
回覆
約翰·B·朱迪斯
4天前
Mike Lind is the cat's pajamas.
1
1
回覆
尤爾格·加斯曼
5天前
Utter drivel.
That parliamentary systems can be repressive and illiberal is starkly highlighted by the current Starmer regime.
The sad truth is that there is no system fix to prevent any political system from breaking down if the system's actors do not want to preserve it.
11
3
回覆
彼得·比奇
4天前
回覆於爾格·加斯曼
You're comparing Starmer's behaviour to a US president starting a unilateral war in Iran, decapitating Venezuela and remodelling the White House without permission?
The rule by executive order when Trump came in – the behaviour of Musk, DOGE and all that jazz – showed up American democracy for the paper tiger that it is, and it was chilling to behold.
The world has been asking: where are the checks and balances on this man? How can he rule the American military from his smartphone on the toilet? It's bizarre.
6
4
回覆
尼克·比爾德
6天前
It is certainly disappointing that Trump seems to have the power to make hugely significant changes to the White House architecture. But as a charge against the US Constitution, this is weak stuff. In contrast, the UK government has the power to make changes to the very constitution itself, such as by subjecting UK citizens and future governments to the strictures of the EU Constitution (stealthily renamed the "Lisbon Treaty"), despite it having been voted down by the people of Europe. The UK desperately needs a constitution, which properly constrains an overweening government (such as Blair's or Starmer's) and preserves power where it belongs: with the electorate.
12
2
回覆
托馬斯·布德羅
7天前
This article is an embarrassment to Unherd. The ballroom kerfuffle is the best example of Trump's dictatorial tendencies that the author can come up with? Does he know that it was the Virginia Supreme Court that invalidated the redistricting plan in Virginia, not the US Supreme Court? People in the UK and Germany are being arrested for internet posts that offend the sensibilities of the political class but it's the US system that threatens democracy and personal liberties? A US government operating under a separation of powers model is more likely to be despotic than a parliamentary model in which the ruling party has nearly unlimited powers? What planet does this guy live on?
19
6
回覆
戴夫·卡納克
7天前
回覆托馬斯·布德羅
The author is correct about most things, especially when it comes to the senate where low population states have the same number of senators as the high population states. Also the president has too much power in a system where he can veto anything he wants in a 2 party system where overturning a veto requires a supermajority , with a 2 party system that is divided as it is , it's almost impossible. Same with the impeachment process in the senate. The parliamentary system would never allow such powers with a PM, a) because in most parliamentary systems there are more than 2 parties, often 4 or 5 and 2) the PM is a member of parliament with the same vote as any another, and if a PM attempts to abuse his powers he can easily get thrown out by members of his own party. DT would never get away with all the abuse of powers in a parliamentary system, other parties and MP's and the public would never tolerate it. DT would be in jail for attempting to overthrow an election in a parliamentary system. I don't think the founding fathers anticipated that someone like DT would ever become president, since they were all reasonable men.
3
7
回覆
托馬斯·布德羅
5天前
回覆戴夫·卡納克
If it's the UK's parliamentary system you're holding up as a model, there is nothing in its recent history to suggest that it's preferable to the US system. The rotating cast of PMs has done nothing to improve Britain's economy or Britons' standard of living (which is now on a par with Mississippi, the poorest state), and whether or not you believe that Brexit was a good thing I think it's self-evident that its implementation has been shambolic. The US Congress has two houses, the House of Representatives in which membership is based on the population of the various states and the Senate where it is based on equal representation by each state. Keeping in mind that the US is a constitutional republic and not a majoritarian democracy, the equal representation in the Senate was designed to keep a few large states from dominating and effectively disenfranchising the smaller states, thus making sure that regional considerations are taken into account in the legislative process. One could argue that the supermajority required to overcome a presidential veto is too high, but as a practical matter it has rarely been an issue. I could list a number of amendments to the US Constitution that I would like to see, but in its current form it seems to me preferable to any other system presently on offer.
6
0
回覆
埃里克·希爾丁格
7天前
But is the UK system better thwarting the tyrany of the bureacratic deep state?
11
1
回覆
Snapper AG
7天前
What a joke. The UK persecutes people for speech the elites don't like, imprisoned a woman for praying silently outside an abortion clinic, criminalizes pretty much all self-defense, is destroying its economy with net zero, and allowed Muslim rape gangs to abuse 250,000 girls and women, and it's the US system that's broken? In the UK a majority vote of Parliament, or a ruling by judges or Quangos can take away literally any right you think you have. It's a tyranny elected by 20% of the people. I'd rather be ruled by King Charles than your current Parliament. Who cares about the West Wing? If that was the worst thing Trump did he'd be the greatest President in history. Virginia clearly overreached, why shouldn't the SC get involved?
24
4
回覆
哈維爾·塞拉瓦利
7天前
I think there are a lot of incorrect points about this column. The States can really push back against the US Federal Government. Take the issues of abortion and gerrymandering. The abortion laws in New York could not be more different that those from Texas and yet they are still part of the Union; at the same time plenty of states decided to gerrymander their districts in mid-cycle (5 years) while others did not. This was a political demand that the President made on the Red States, not a legal Federal mandate. You need a somewhat strong Federal Government, not only to keep the country together, but also to use its taxing authority to transfer funds from the rich states into the poorer states, to keep commerce flowing and to maintain the strength of the economy. The legal conflicts between localities and the Feds are expensive and nasty to be sure, but the US does not have a Scotland that is still itching to leave the UK, or Alberta that wants to become its own petro-state. But my biggest objection is that there is not way out of this system. If you eliminate the Senate or allocate Senators proportionally, some states, in particular those out West, would sue to secede. Also if the US were to convert into a parliamentary system, then the PM would have much less authority than the governors of most states, and one can easily see any of the largest states (CA, TX, FL and NY) imposing its will upon the rest of the country, which will result in blocks of States leaving the Union.
11
0
回覆
UnHerd Reader
7天前
All democracies and republics eventually fail as even the Ancients and the Founding Fathers of our Constitution and Nation knew. The hope is that an educated society can control its transition from democracy to anarchy to tyranny and so forth. The Roman Republic went from republic to principate to dominate and on to give us Christian Western Civilization. Not sure we will do just as well. I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.”
― John Adams, The Letters of John and Abigail Adams
11
0
回覆
本傑明·格雷科
7天前
Lind is putting too much blame on the separation of powers and ignoring the historical reasons for the breakdown of federalism, ending slavery. The bigger problem in America is years of contradictory and foolish Supreme Court jurisprudence that can't be changed because the founders made it so hard to amend the constitution. Corporations are not people and money is not speech. If the people were asked they would not have come to the same conclusions the court did. All democracies carry the seeds of their own destruction, a free people that loses faith in their institutions will often reject democracy in favor of totalitarianism. Britain is special because it has a two-party parliamentary system for now. Other countries with many competing parties are more fragile. Look at Israel where small right-wing parties have been able to rule because of a coalition with a corrupt politician trying to stay out of jail. America's founders couldn't see into the future and predict the extent of the changes the industrial revolution and mass media would bring. The real power ended up in the hands of the rich who can buy the politicians, so their greed goes unchecked. It isn't the separation of powers that is responsible for the breakdown of our democracy it is the massive inequality and power imbalance between the rich and everyone else. Like all idealists the founding fathers who were skeptical about man's inclinations still put too much faith in him.
6
1
回覆
安德魯·範巴納
7天前
回覆本傑明·格雷科
I personally reject the notion that the US should be run only by intellectual elites and the politically well connected. Blue states adopted that model, and they now struggle to keep roads paved and sidewalks free of excrement. Inequality happens wherever there is human freedom, as all of our ambitions and abilities differ. Inequality is always worsened, though, when bureaucrats or regulators put their heavy thumbs on the scale. There was great inequality in the USSR, for example, between senior party leaders and the average Soviet citizen. There are enormous differences in the lifestyles of well paid government workers in France, and the average Frenchman.
6
1
回覆
馬克斯·莫爾
7天前
回覆本傑明·格雷科
Excessive power ended up in the hands of the rich and politically connected because America failed to control the power and growth of the state. That is largely the fault of the Supreme Court, especially around FDR's time. With a minimal state, rich people can only make money by serving customers, not through government contracts and subsidies and antitrust laws that protect the large and powerful.
5
0
回覆
大衛耶特
7天前
回覆本傑明·格雷科
I'm sorry but spending money to publish a message, especially a political message, is either speech or press, and simply having banded together to form a corporation does not vitiate one's natural rights. Citizens United was correctly decided. The remedy is to require that corporate entities have the approval of their owners (for joint-stock corporations) or members (for organizations like labor unions) before they deploy their resources in political action. What is odious about corporate (or union) political spending is not that it is done by a group, but that it is done supposedly on behalf of the owners or members by managers or union bosses whose interests and political views may well not accord with those whose resources they are using. A law requiring a majority vote of the equitable ownership or membership to approve expenditures on political speech and publication, as to amount and purpose, before managers or union bosses could undertake such activity would completely fix the problem and would stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny since its preamble could explicitly cite the reasoning in Citizens United as the reason for its passage.
4
0
回覆
保羅·布洛爾斯
7天前
Too many hubristic essays are appearing on UnHerd, and this is one of them. Too many premature or un-prescient and overdrawn blah-blah-blahs. Too many essays where essayists sounds like they are having a conversation with themselves, trying to birth a great insight.
18
0
回覆
諾瑪安德森
7天前
We're a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. We the People would like to wish you a nice day.
7
0
回覆
戴夫·卡納克
7天前
回覆諾瑪安德森
more like a 2 party tyranny than a republic, the fact that only 2 parties have control of the politics and big money controls both parties, makes you wonder why people even bother voting.
4
6
回覆
肯特·奧斯本
7天前
回覆戴夫·卡納克
Big money and political coercion from China controls Canada's government through it's left wing parties, which the majority of Canadians seem to prefer.
3
2
回覆
里克·弗雷澤
7天前
回覆戴夫·卡納克
The founders messed up badly in two areas. First, the absence of term limits for members of Congress. I suspect they never considered anyone would seek a lifelong career in politics, but surely they knew a thing or two about human nature and power seeking. Second, the ability to tax income as a source of revenue for the federal government should have been off limits even to constitutional amendment. I suspect they also figured Americans would never allow such a tax to be imposed, but here we are…a monstrosity of a government with unmanageable debt and members of Congress more concerned about staying in office than anything else. The areas of focus in this article are little sideshows compared with these root causes of our ongoing problems.
7
1
回覆
馬克斯·莫爾
7天前
回覆里克·弗雷澤
There should also have been term limits on laws. In other words, sunset rules. The Founders, despite remarkable foresight, perhaps could not imaging the state growing so vast with so much regulation and control. We need a constitutional amendment requiring all laws to be revoted every 5 or 10 years. That would automatically limit the growth of central control.
2
1
回覆
格拉夫·馮·弗蘭肯海姆
7天前
The UK, Canada, AUstralia and New Zealand were the most repressive, authoritarian and illiberal countries during the so-called Covid pandemic. Some had concentration camps ready for their vaccine-hesitant or Covid-critical citizens. All of this was far worse than the US; these countries went totally overboard. So how is that consistent with mr Lind's little fairy tale?
20
3
回覆
米凱爾·古斯塔夫松
6天前
回覆格拉夫·馮·弗蘭肯海姆
Concentation camps? Where?
3
2
回覆
尤安·格雷
7天前
The problem with codified constitutions is that they entrench the opinions of their time. It's fine for a while, but times change. Perhaps the classic exemplar of this is America's second amendment, like the rest of their Bill of Rights an entrenched clause. This amendment was made in a time when there was widespread popular opposition to the idea of a standing army and at the same time a recognition by the government that the young country needed the means to defend itself from foreign aggressors. Therefore, what a brilliant idea to let the people have the right to keep their own guns. Presto, you have a ready-trained force at hand in time of war. Works great when the cutting edge of military technology is the muzzle-loading rifle. Not so much in an age of machine guns and assault rifles. Much American political philosophy at the time of independence was actually English political thought. The feeling behind the American Bill of Rights was much the same as that behind the English Bill of Rights. The difference is America is stuck with it whereas in Britain the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy has meant our Bill of Rights can be and has been substantially amended to suit changing times. You cannot have entrenched clauses under the Westminster system, but you can and invariably do with codified constitutions.
3
9
回覆
丹尼爾·P
7天前
回覆尤安·格雷
That is some serious BS right there. The constitution's principles are as valid today as they have ever been. And, since you clearly have an issue with the 2nd amendment, I imagine the founders would not have agreed with you. Do not kid yourself, they wanted a populace that had the same level of arms that the government had in the event that at some point the populace felt it necessary to replace the government. I suppose you missed the huge numbers of liberals that ran out and bought guns for the first time in their lives when they were convinced that Trump would refuse to step down
留言
張貼留言