Hitler was not president but Chancellor. Weimar Germany was a semi-presidential republic of which he was not president.

Erdogan, Pressing for Presidential Rule, Cites Hitler.

An opaque news story that does nothing to tell us what's really up.

A unitary state (I had to look it up) in a nutshell is just a non-federal one.

As regards the existence or powers of the office of president, republics worldwide offer a considerable variety, the US offering a model of a presidential system compared to which the Russian and French systems are classed as semi-presidential, as is the Weimar Republic.

This is better, but not a lot, ignoring important differences among the US, France, and Russia while making no sense at all about Germany.

The Weimar Republic pretty much abolished itself, making Hitler, the Chancellor, a dictator in 1933, able to rule as he wished unconstrained by the laws or the constitution, with some powers nominally still reserved to the actual president, Hindenburg, who made Hitler Chancellor.

Anyway, widespread dissatisfaction with the current Turkish constitution stems from its origin with the last military government and its alleged lack of adequate protection for civil liberties.

That does not appear to be what bothers Erdogan.

The citation of Hitler's Germany as an example of the sort of government he wants is a bit unnerving.

It is interesting that actual politicians and even judges charged with enforcement of constitutional legitimacy often - should I say routinely? - have other priorities they regard as trumping it.

And some of those responsible for training them make no bones about their own preference for successful enactment of their values and agendas even at the cost of "constitutional disobedience."

Exactly this attitude is widespread among political activists on all sides, but especially and most successfully in the US in recent decades on the left, among the classe politique, and even among the people at large.