Did the Philadelphia convention of 1787 consider and reject votes of no confidence?

Upvote:5

A vote of no confidence only makes sense when the Executive is accountable to Parliament.

Depending on the country, this results in new snap elections (e.g. UK) or a new PM getting nominated by the President (or other Head of State) to form a new government (e.g. France, which has several instances of cohabitation).

My understanding of the US debates at the time is that they wanted none of that. Rather, they wanted equal branches of government, sort of mapped after Montesquieu, with the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary forced to coexist and cooperate with one another whether they liked it or not.

So in short yes, they did consider the idea of a vote of no confidence. Specifically, they made it so that Congress could impeach the Executive in the US Constitution -- which is more or less equivalent for a Presidential system. (See Federalist 65.)

Another factor that likely played is simply that the concept of votes of no confidence barely existed at the time to begin with. In fact, the first ever such motion passed appears to have been in March 1782, following news of the siege of Yorktown's outcome.

More post

Search Posts

Related post