Could a US State (that is, a State in the United States of America) legally have an operative, hereditary monarchy without violating Federal Law or the US Constitution, assuming either that the people vote it into power or if the monarchy existed in a sovereign country that is admitted to the US sometime in the future?
For the purposes of this question, I’m talking about a monarchy whose powers would be limited to a subset of the powers reserved to the US States by the US Constitution, so a State King under this question might be able to alter public education rules, define or alter criminal offenses, and judge at trials, but couldn’t make a treaty with a foreign country, regulate interstate or foreign commerce, or coin money.
Article 4, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
However, theres also an article although I don’t remember which one, that says the states will grant no hereditary title.
Edit:
Article 1, Section 9: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States[…]
That’s not specifically binding on the states, however those two sections taken together could, theoretically, be interpreted as implicitly banning monarchy.
Article 4, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
However, theres also an article although I don’t remember which one, that says the states will grant no hereditary title.
Edit:
Article 1, Section 9: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States[…]
That’s not specifically binding on the states, however those two sections taken together could, theoretically, be interpreted as implicitly banning monarchy.
Edit 2:
Artcle 1, Section 10: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Looks like it’s explicitly stated, neither the states nor the federal goverment can grant nobility.
A republic is not simply a state whose chief executive/head of government is not called “King,” “Queen,” “Prince,” “Princess,” or “Emperor.” A republic is a state in which sovereignty rests with the populace (or a significant portion of same) rather than any single individual or small group. If the people of Tennessee elected me Governor-for-life–meaning I was understood to be entitled to that office until I died, and no one had the legal power to remove me no matter what I did), then the people of Tennessee have surrendered their sovereignty to me, and Tennessee stops being a republic.
Cite? What is the time limit for a governor’s term required by the constitution. 4 years? Ten years? What if the term was 50 years, which would effectively be “for life” for most people.
“A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch[1] and the people (or at least a part of its people)[2] have an impact on its government.[3][4] The word “republic” is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as “a public affair”.”
Suggestion Two- elected Governor for life subject to recall if such an election is requested by a certain number of people.
A monarch is a sovereign ruler. A governor-for-life, by definition, cannot be removed by legal means; sovereignty no longer rests with the people, but rather that single individual. Appointing someone Governor-for-life is making him or her prince of the state, regardless of the specific title. (I say prince rather than king because the OP specifes that we’re talking about the 50 constituent units of the United States and that the territory in question would remain part of the US; thus the GFL is subject to a larger authority–OUTSIDE the bounds of his state–and is a prince rather than a king or queen regnant.
It’s foolish to define monarch as “king or queen.” Those are English words for specific types of monarch; and there are at least four other possibilities.
Padme Amidala, in the Star Wars prequels, was called Queen but was not a monarch; she held office for a specific term and had to be elected to it.
Kim Jim Il, of North Korea, is called president but is actually a monarch; he cannot be recalled by the people.
The specific title doesn’t matter. If, by law, a person is chief executive & head of government of a specific terrtory, for life, and thus cannot be removed from office by any legal means, sovereignty rests with that person, not with the people. It matters not whether the person is addressed as King, Queen, Empress, First Speaker, President-for-Life, or Papa Smurf.
And my suggestion was President for life subject to recall- much like modern monarchies.
The British Monarch only holds that office if supported by Parliament. She is not an absolute monarch but is subject to removal- as messy as that would be.
In many ways the British Monarch became President for Life after the Glorious Revolution.
I can see no legal impediment to a similar system with stated recall procedures being seen as a Republican form of government.
I specified a governor-for-life NOT subject to recall. A GfL who IS subject to recall is not sovereign. Also, Queen Elizabeth is not head of government and has few, if any, real powers.
And in my post that you answered I had said subject to recall.
So on that undersatnding, perhaps the UK could become a US state with Lizzie as Governor for life, given that she can be removed by a general election electing a party planning to remove her (once the Lords is totally elected!)
Commas do not have cooties; please try to use them occasionally.
The reason I specified being subject to recall (whether by a recall election or the necessity to be re-elected) is that I’m trying to define monarch, and it’s not enough to just say king or queen, in my opinion. It’s necessary to note what makes someone a king or queen (or prince, princess, duke, or whatnot).
And Lizzie is only Monarch for al long as the people want her. She can be removed by the legislature elected by the people. Does that make her a monarch or somethingelse?
