Talk:Tetracameralism
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 April 2021. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I didn't know if law or government stub fit best here so I included both. go ahead and switch them or remove on if needed. Felixboy 18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
French Directorate Regime Example
[edit]I'm removing the following because it is not an example of tetracameralism, where there are four chambers that vote on bills:
The most important example of tetracameralism is the Directorate regime in France (beginning of the 19th century, the period between the French Revolution and the First Empire of Napoleon Bonaparte). There was an inneficient Parliament with 4 chambers: Senate, House of Representatives,Tribunate and Legislative Council. The 5 directors (heads of state) had the right to initiate laws, then the Legislative Council wrote them in a professional style; the Tribunate discussed them in a public session, and after that the law is (most certainly) sent to the 2 main houses (Senate and House of Representatives) for voting. This complicate system was abolished by Napoleon after his proclamation as emperor.
As I understand the above-given example, only two chambers actually vote on bills, although they are discussed and written up by two other chambers. It seems to me that the other two "chambers" are committees, one that writes up the laws in professional style, and the other that discusses it publicly. In Scandinavian tetracameralism all four chambers vote on proposed bills. Similarly, in the tricameralism of Apartheid South Africa, Simón Bolívar, and the French Ancien Régime, each of the three chambers voted on proposed bills.