Facing the imminent prospect of our two most recent ex-governors being able to wave across the aisle at each other in prison, I think it’s time we consider ridding the Great State of Illinois of these gubernatorial plagues. Time and time again we find our governors in a bit of a legal pickle.
In light of the recent discussion that there doesn’t appear to be any constitutional issue with a state deciding to run itself in a parliamentary fashion, what would bar Illinois from convening a constitutional convention, dispensing of the Republic entirely, and styling itself a fully-blown constitutional monarchy?
What would legally stop the citizenry willingly proclaiming itself subjects of the late King Paul Simon (or Adlai Stevenson, or Lord Dearborn, etc.) and proclaiming the Kingdom of Illinois, fully styling its government after the UK and its constitutional monarchy?
Let’s say the citizenry found a willing monarch, with no deigns on power but to be the local equivalent of Queen Elizabeth II, and enthroned him/her in Springfield? And drew up a constitution legally codifying the monarchy, parliament, the whole deal, modeled exactly after the UK?
King Illinois, of course, has no desire to separate from the Union, but just to maintain the kind, benevolent Kingdom of Illinois within the heartland, proud neighbors of Wisconsin and Indiana etc. - a full, willing, legal participating state bound to the Union.
Who could legally stop this, if it was a collective movement in-state? Could the Feds step in and put a halt to things, without a suit filed? Could, say, Wisconsin sue Illinois for putting on “heirs”?