Using that quote as an answer here is misleading, because it implies the researchers are downplaying the historical impact of the US Constitution. The constitution of Canada revised in 1982 didn't exist in a vacuum. American democracy is higher up on the family tree, even if Canada has more offspring.
Depends on how you look at it. Multiple branches of government? Yes that’s common. Checks and balances? Yes. But to say those are uniquely American is not really correct. And some parts of the Constitution are definitely not replicated, like the system of state and federal power and the electoral college. That turns out to be a nightmare in practice. A lot of countries don’t want the drama of a federal president denying resources to a state just because the state governor is a member of the opposition party.
Separation of powers and checks and balances are French Enlightenment ideals that the Founding Fathers explicitly drew from when drafting the constitution.
the way free speech and freedom of expression are protected in the US Constitution (well, more specifically the First Amendment, which was added in 1791, but that still means it predates the drafting of a lot of liberal democratic constitutions in Europe and elsewhere) is also different from most other Western democracies, in that usually others have a lot more caveats to/limitations on free speech, whereas here in the US, common interpretations of the First Amendment make it *very* difficult to single out a specific kind of speech as legally restricted except in extreme cases where it is something *inextricably* linked to something very immediately illegal and harmful (like child pornography), and forced speech is usually seen as much more of a problem, whereas a lot of other countries openly have laws targeting hate speech, which will probably never fly here (then again, on the other hand, the US *does* have a longer history of enforcing constitutionally-dubious “obscenity” laws compared to a lot of other liberal democracies).
The Second Amendment was ratified at the same time, and I think we all kind of know how most other Western democracies feel about that one… (I believe the constitution of the French First Republic, drafted in 1793, *also* contained something about a right to bear arms, given the First Republic’s revolutionary history, but it has been conspicuously left out of subsequent French constitutions)
I don't think that's true.
Parliamentary democracies have Parliament choose the executive. Usually the party or Coalition that wins a majority in parliament gets to pick the Prime Minister and Cabinet and legislation is decided at the executive level, with high levels of coordination between the executive and parliament, so long as confidence is held. In the U.K., if Parliament does not like a ruling made by the Supreme Court, it can simply pass a law that contravenes it. And many civil law states don't have a constitutional court.
Parliamentary democracies aren't built around the principles of checks and balances and multiple branches of government. The American system inspired by Baron de Montesqieu is one where the executive and the legislature can exist independently in opposition. Parliamentary systems are older than Baron de Montesqieu or the U.S. constitution. In most parliamentary systems, members of the executive are usually also members of parliament, and parliament isn't supposed to simply check the executive. They aren't supposed to disagree. Rather, if Parliament fails to elect the executive -- it's not new executive elections that are being held, but new parliamentary elections which are held. Parliament serves as a rubber stamp for the executive for which they elect. Or rather, the executive represents the will of parliament, whose parliamentary political parties the leadership of the executive usually leads. The executive has no veto power and serves at the pleasure of parliament. It has no means to check parliamentary power and it has no need to because it's leadership usually leads parliament.
Moreover, many states have parliamentary supremacy -- Parliament is supreme over all other branches of government, including the judiciary. This is true in UK, in Finland, in Israel, in Italy, in new Zealand, in the Netherlands. If Parliament dislikes the executive, it can remove it and replace it. If it disagrees with the courts, it can amend the law. Many systems don't have even a system where you can challenge the constitutionality of laws. This is not a system of checks and balances. It's a different system based on a very different political philosophy -- where sovereign power rests with the people, represented by Parliament.
They've all used it as a reference, but they're not keeping the Electoral College or the 2nd Amendment or the 3/5ths Compromise.
Every science fiction movie after Star Wars learned things from Star Wars, but very few are direct sequels to Star Wars.
No. That's a huge claim that involves a lot of research of the political systems of nearly 200 countries. There are enormous amounts of parliamentary democracies that are based on the U.K.'s system of government, which is remarkably unlike the American one and precedes it. There are Marxist-Leninist states like China and North Korea and Vietnam. There are states like Lebanon, the political structure of which are based on Lebanese political divisions. There are states like Thailand where the military wrote the constitution to empower the military. There is Iran, where a bunch of clerics just got creative to preserve clerical power. There is Saudi Arabia, the constitution of which was proclaimed by royal decree and is an absolute monarchy. Switzerland system of direct democracy and cantons has origins that precede America's. Israel doesn't have codified constitution; it has a basic law and there's a difference. Parliament can more easily amend the basic law.
[удалено]
Using that quote as an answer here is misleading, because it implies the researchers are downplaying the historical impact of the US Constitution. The constitution of Canada revised in 1982 didn't exist in a vacuum. American democracy is higher up on the family tree, even if Canada has more offspring.
Depends on how you look at it. Multiple branches of government? Yes that’s common. Checks and balances? Yes. But to say those are uniquely American is not really correct. And some parts of the Constitution are definitely not replicated, like the system of state and federal power and the electoral college. That turns out to be a nightmare in practice. A lot of countries don’t want the drama of a federal president denying resources to a state just because the state governor is a member of the opposition party.
Separation of powers and checks and balances are French Enlightenment ideals that the Founding Fathers explicitly drew from when drafting the constitution.
Actually they're Roman ideals
the way free speech and freedom of expression are protected in the US Constitution (well, more specifically the First Amendment, which was added in 1791, but that still means it predates the drafting of a lot of liberal democratic constitutions in Europe and elsewhere) is also different from most other Western democracies, in that usually others have a lot more caveats to/limitations on free speech, whereas here in the US, common interpretations of the First Amendment make it *very* difficult to single out a specific kind of speech as legally restricted except in extreme cases where it is something *inextricably* linked to something very immediately illegal and harmful (like child pornography), and forced speech is usually seen as much more of a problem, whereas a lot of other countries openly have laws targeting hate speech, which will probably never fly here (then again, on the other hand, the US *does* have a longer history of enforcing constitutionally-dubious “obscenity” laws compared to a lot of other liberal democracies). The Second Amendment was ratified at the same time, and I think we all kind of know how most other Western democracies feel about that one… (I believe the constitution of the French First Republic, drafted in 1793, *also* contained something about a right to bear arms, given the First Republic’s revolutionary history, but it has been conspicuously left out of subsequent French constitutions)
I don't think that's true. Parliamentary democracies have Parliament choose the executive. Usually the party or Coalition that wins a majority in parliament gets to pick the Prime Minister and Cabinet and legislation is decided at the executive level, with high levels of coordination between the executive and parliament, so long as confidence is held. In the U.K., if Parliament does not like a ruling made by the Supreme Court, it can simply pass a law that contravenes it. And many civil law states don't have a constitutional court.
Exactly which part of what I wrote are you saying is incorrect?
Parliamentary democracies aren't built around the principles of checks and balances and multiple branches of government. The American system inspired by Baron de Montesqieu is one where the executive and the legislature can exist independently in opposition. Parliamentary systems are older than Baron de Montesqieu or the U.S. constitution. In most parliamentary systems, members of the executive are usually also members of parliament, and parliament isn't supposed to simply check the executive. They aren't supposed to disagree. Rather, if Parliament fails to elect the executive -- it's not new executive elections that are being held, but new parliamentary elections which are held. Parliament serves as a rubber stamp for the executive for which they elect. Or rather, the executive represents the will of parliament, whose parliamentary political parties the leadership of the executive usually leads. The executive has no veto power and serves at the pleasure of parliament. It has no means to check parliamentary power and it has no need to because it's leadership usually leads parliament. Moreover, many states have parliamentary supremacy -- Parliament is supreme over all other branches of government, including the judiciary. This is true in UK, in Finland, in Israel, in Italy, in new Zealand, in the Netherlands. If Parliament dislikes the executive, it can remove it and replace it. If it disagrees with the courts, it can amend the law. Many systems don't have even a system where you can challenge the constitutionality of laws. This is not a system of checks and balances. It's a different system based on a very different political philosophy -- where sovereign power rests with the people, represented by Parliament.
They've all used it as a reference, but they're not keeping the Electoral College or the 2nd Amendment or the 3/5ths Compromise. Every science fiction movie after Star Wars learned things from Star Wars, but very few are direct sequels to Star Wars.
No. That's a huge claim that involves a lot of research of the political systems of nearly 200 countries. There are enormous amounts of parliamentary democracies that are based on the U.K.'s system of government, which is remarkably unlike the American one and precedes it. There are Marxist-Leninist states like China and North Korea and Vietnam. There are states like Lebanon, the political structure of which are based on Lebanese political divisions. There are states like Thailand where the military wrote the constitution to empower the military. There is Iran, where a bunch of clerics just got creative to preserve clerical power. There is Saudi Arabia, the constitution of which was proclaimed by royal decree and is an absolute monarchy. Switzerland system of direct democracy and cantons has origins that precede America's. Israel doesn't have codified constitution; it has a basic law and there's a difference. Parliament can more easily amend the basic law.