Palin says she might run for high office again

[Aspen]

oh right, yeah, I kind of forgot about them being senators and governors - now that I think about it I'm not even sure what either of those positions is
At the moment, I'm trying to work out what is the equivalent of parliament, and if a senator is like an MP.
We don't have an upper or lower government anything either.
I'm thinking there are pretty much NO direct analogies between the USA and the NZ systems of government, which is kind of surprising because you sort of expect these things to be the same.
Unfortunately, people here suspect that the elections here are being influenced by the USA presidential election and turning into a potential prime minister vs. potential prime minister race, whereas actually it's party vs party and the party can change it's leader and thus the prime minister once it's in.

Edit: Parliament is made up of the house of representatives and the queen, but most people call the house of representatives "parliament"

We have three branches of government.

The legislative branch has our Senators and Congressmen, two Senators from each of our 50 states and at least one Congressman per state but the number of Congressmen is based on the relative population of the state to the population of the US, which is determined by census. I would guess our Legislative branch is sort of like your Parliament.

The Executive branch is headed by the President and includes his Cabinet. The President may have been a member of Congress or the Senate, but not necessarily. The Constitutional requirements are that he be over 35, be a natural born citizen of the US, have lived at least fourteen years in the US, and that he not have previously served as President for more than six years, since he is limited to two four year terms and in addition, he may have served as a Vice-President who became President for up to two years of the previous President's term, so the most anyone could possibly serve as President of the US is a total of ten years

The Judicial branch is our Supreme Court and lower Federal and District and state courts.

Our states' Executive branches are headed by their Governors, who are elected along with their state representatives by the individual states.

[adhocisadirtyword]

Aspen's summary is good. It would probably help to note that the legislative branch is generally the one that writes the various bills that get signed into law by the executive branch.

Each state also has its own legislative branch - most of them with a similar layout and function as the federal government. The state ones just have jurisdiction over internal state matters. Most of our laws that impact individuals differ somewhat by state.

The stuff at the federal level tends to be about subjects that impact the nation as a whole.

[AKAConlang]

Aspen's summary is good. It would probably help to note that the legislative branch is generally the one that writes the various bills that get signed into law by the executive branch.

Each state also has its own legislative branch - most of them with a similar layout and function as the federal government. The state ones just have jurisdiction over internal state matters. Most of our laws that impact individuals differ somewhat by state.

The stuff at the federal level tends to be about subjects that impact the nation as a whole.

And the judicial branch is supposed to overturn the laws that violate the constitution

[AKAConlang]

ALASKAN WOLVES
SHOOT PALIN FROM A HELICOPTER
2012

I am so stealing this. Don't worry, I'll give credit

[adhocisadirtyword]

No worries. Glad you liked it.

[Charlie]

oh right, yeah, I kind of forgot about them being senators and governors - now that I think about it I'm not even sure what either of those positions is
At the moment, I'm trying to work out what is the equivalent of parliament, and if a senator is like an MP.
We don't have an upper or lower government anything either.
I'm thinking there are pretty much NO direct analogies between the USA and the NZ systems of government, which is kind of surprising because you sort of expect these things to be the same.
Unfortunately, people here suspect that the elections here are being influenced by the USA presidential election and turning into a potential prime minister vs. potential prime minister race, whereas actually it's party vs party and the party can change it's leader and thus the prime minister once it's in.

Edit: Parliament is made up of the house of representatives and the queen, but most people call the house of representatives "parliament"

There are loose similarities between the UK and US as well as the similarities of the UK and NZ systems.

In the UK (ignoring the regional assemblies in Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland) there are two houses - the House of Commons where the MPs sit, and the House of Lords sit, and who are not elected by the public and were traditionally hereditary peerages or former MPs, and these combined make up Parliament, although the term is usually only applied to the Commons. Any bill or act agreed or passed by MPs has to then be ratified by the Lords, before given royal ascent before it becomes law.

Of course the queen could therefore veto any bill, although this is not done. The power is almost ceremonial in effect, a bit like her being head of the Church of England (thus the laws on no Catholics allowed in the Royal Family), head of the Armed Forces (and thus allowed to declare war or peace) and being immune from being sued or prosecuted (as the courts are hers, and she would not prosecute herself!).

This got me thinking. She is no doubt likely to have similar powers in the other (major) countries she is head of state, so would this mean that if she felt mischievous enough as head of the UK forces could declare war on Canada, whilst simultaneously declaring making Canada declare War on New Zealand, who in turn makes war with Australia, who themselves declare War with the UK. Alternatively she could let us all join forces and take on the US....

Granted that power for declaration of war rests with individual parliament/governors, which is the same as here (unless you are Tony Blair who thinks he is above it all and can start wars without proper Parliamentary backing), the queen still has ultimately overall control.

[beware_the_sluagh]

Apparently, NZ used to have a kind of upper house until 1951, which was called the Legislative Council. Then it was gotten rid of and everyone decided we were better off that way apparently. I haven't looked up the details or what they did or how they worked. National tried to reinstate them as a "Senate" but the Labour party convinced everyone it was a stupid idea and it was dropped, never to be raised again, so far.
Apparently our laws all need to be approved by the queen, but of course this is just a ceremonial, but still necessary legally, thing.

And the judicial branch is supposed to overturn the laws that violate the constitution

Interestingly, NZ has no constitution of organisation higher than Parliament, so technically they can do whatever they want, but they don't. Our bill of rights is a normal piece of legislation, and the rules governing voting, etc, are normal Acts of Parliament which were enacted with rules saying that they must have 75% plus of MPs supporting changes, or a binding referendum.
I find this interesting, given that there are a lot of people complaining about violation of rights and constitution in the USA when they theoretically have measures against this, and not here, where we don't. I think this means that if things are going to go sh*t, laws don't do a whole lot to stop it. It's like how laws don't stop criminals (they just allow you to prosecute them) and those who obey laws are unlikely to commit crimes anyway. (laws probably prevent some people from committing criminal acts, but overall most people act how they would act anyway - although more sneakily!).

[Charlie]

One of the things I find somewhat strange in America, especially as they are one of the fastest changing and evolving world leaders is the rigid adherence to the constitution with no form of flexibility save a few amendments which happened years ago. Whilst it is undoubtedly a good basis for the country, surely there are bits which are out of date and need adjusting.

We in the UK had the Magna Carta as proclaimed and signed by King John in 1215, which is the basis of the rule of law in this country giving various rights. However over the years we have not been afraid to pass laws which in effect repeal what is written and add, remove or rephrase passages as the times and circumstances change.

That said the first time a clause in the Magna Carta was repealed the year was 1829 - over 600 years since introduction (but then again there were not that many huge breakthroughs in general living affecting science over these centuries), so the US still has a few hundred years left of it's current wording at this rate....

Wikipedia page

[Aspen]

One of the things I find somewhat strange in America, especially as they are one of the fastest changing and evolving world leaders is the rigid adherence to the constitution with no form of flexibility save a few amendments which happened years ago. Whilst it is undoubtedly a good basis for the country, surely there are bits which are out of date and need adjusting.

The US Constitution has 27 amendments. The most recent one was ratified in 1992.

It is somewhat difficult to ratify an amendment to the US Constitution.

The Preamble to our Bill of Rights describes the process:

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

[Sophist]

Aspen's summary is good. It would probably help to note that the legislative branch is generally the one that writes the various bills that get signed into law by the executive branch.

Each state also has its own legislative branch - most of them with a similar layout and function as the federal government. The state ones just have jurisdiction over internal state matters. Most of our laws that impact individuals differ somewhat by state.

The stuff at the federal level tends to be about subjects that impact the nation as a whole.

And the judicial branch is supposed to overturn the laws that violate the constitution

"Supposed to."

[AKAConlang]

the rigid adherence to the constitution with no form of flexibility

I started laughing, then thought about the patriot act, and that just made me sad.

Bush is the least popular president in History, and even he gets away with trampling all over our constitutional rights.

[AKAConlang]

Aspen's summary is good. It would probably help to note that the legislative branch is generally the one that writes the various bills that get signed into law by the executive branch.

Each state also has its own legislative branch - most of them with a similar layout and function as the federal government. The state ones just have jurisdiction over internal state matters. Most of our laws that impact individuals differ somewhat by state.

The stuff at the federal level tends to be about subjects that impact the nation as a whole.

And the judicial branch is supposed to overturn the laws that violate the constitution

"Supposed to."

[cough]separation of church and state[/cough][coughcough]in god we trust[/coughcough]

[Sophist]

Aspen's summary is good. It would probably help to note that the legislative branch is generally the one that writes the various bills that get signed into law by the executive branch.

Each state also has its own legislative branch - most of them with a similar layout and function as the federal government. The state ones just have jurisdiction over internal state matters. Most of our laws that impact individuals differ somewhat by state.

The stuff at the federal level tends to be about subjects that impact the nation as a whole.

And the judicial branch is supposed to overturn the laws that violate the constitution

"Supposed to."

[cough]separation of church and state[/cough][coughcough]in god we trust[/coughcough]

Riiiiiiiiiight. **cough, cough** Ahem.