I missed the Truther reference first time through. (I skimmed, so shoot me).
If they adhere to a code of chivalry – protect the weak – then I’ll likely be okay. (I’m weak!) But since we know they don’t always follow that code, screw it.
And if the monarch is so weakened as to be merely ceremonial…then why bother? We have football teams to cheer for and movie stars to adore.
Democratic self-government is the greatest thing humanity ever invented. The idea that anyone would want to scrap it and go back to “accident of birth” as a qualification to rule is beyond astonishing.
(“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”)
There’s plenty of bickering and squabbling in the politics of consitutional monarchies, such as the U.K. Corruption, too.
What you call bickering and squabbling is actually the peoples’ representatives working to reconcile competing interests through compromise. It doesn’t matter if it’s pretty, it works. There’s no bickering and squabbling over politics in authoritarian states, are they better for it?
“Efficient”? What does that even mean in this context?
Also, the Westminster system doesn’t require a monarch with powers, see Japan for one example.
Look at Switzerland. We can play dueling-successful-countries all night.
It’s not the worst idea I’ve ever seen (that involved using sliced American cheese in place of dollar bills) but this is in the running for second place.
Well, traditionally the warlord needs the weak to pay him tribute of food and gold and such, so he can’t be too hard on them. As long as they don’t rock the boat, of course.
Honestly, I think that a UK-style constitutional monarchy is actually marginally superior to what we have here… But you can’t get there from here. The way you form a constitutional monarchy is by starting with an actual empowered monarchy that stays in power for centuries, and then gradually erode away the monarch’s powers but leave the traditions intact. If you try to put a limited monarch in place from scratch, then you’ll find that you lack the traditions, too, which are the whole point of having a monarchy.
I nominate Prince Michael of Albany. For balls and style.
Well, the system the OP suggests goes much further than the UK system. To quote her:
Frankly, there’s no way that would fly with the modern American public.
This reminds me of a late-1980s Bloom County cartoon where Berkeley Breathed spent a week or so mocking the British royals, including a six-ish Prince William who proposed sending the Royal Navy to “take back Massachusetts.”
Anyway, as a Canadian, I’d cheerfully vote to end our country’s pro-forma association with the British monarchy and become a formal republic (I don’t mind keeping the largely-ceremonial Governor General, though) should the issue ever come up for such a vote. I can’t say it’s something I find myself dwelling on, though, let alone slamming message boards about.
A constitutional monarchy is preferable to the alternative; an elected Presidency. It avoids the partisan nature of a Presidency, inevitably associated with one of the political parties, and thus incapable of uniting the nation as monarchy can. In all countries public trust of politicians is sinking to new lows, another reason why an elected Presidency fails to provide a focus for national feeling. A constitutional monarchy is also a more effective system of government, vesting real power clearly in the hands of democratically accountable leaders with a mandate to govern, without all the dangers of political gridlock that can result from conflict between two differently elected bodies (e.g. in the USA or France).
“I hate rebels, I hate traitors, I hate tyranny come from where it will. I have seen much of the world, and I have learnt from experience to hate and detest republics. There is nothing but tyranny & oppression, I have never known a good act done by a Republican, it is contrary to his character under the mask of Liberty. He is a tyrant, a many headed monster that devours your happiness and property. Nothing is free from this monster’s grasp. A republic has no affection for its subjects. A King may be ill advised and act wrong, a Republic never acts right, for a knot of villains support each other, and together they do what no single person dare attempt.” - Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson
There’s no way that would fly with the modern British public. If the Queen tried using any powers like that (I’m not sure the monarchy has those powers) the Parliament would simply step in and take them away from her.
Either you have a monarch who is basically a figurehead and stands above politics and everyone likes him or her as a national symbol, or you have a monarch with real power and whose actions have consequences, which means they’ll inevitably do things people don’t like. You can’t have it both ways.
Relax, it’s not 1212 anymore lol.
It’s time for the United States to join the Commonwealth. Membership in the Commonwealth would facilitate the kind of globalization that is in the American national interest, and it would serve as a hedge against the emergence of a less benign international order based on civilizational power politics. In return, United States membership would offer the Commonwealth a much-needed shot in the arm in terms of resources and ideas that could transform it from a persistent underachiever into a leading model of transcivilizational co-operation.
ELIGIBILITY:
The Commonwealth is an important world organisation. It covers peoples of every religion, every colour, many languages, and every level of wealth. The common link is that all but one of these countries were at some point part of the British Empire. The United States of America therefore qualifies for membership.
COMMONWEALTH POSITIVES:
Within the family of nations that is the Commonwealth are Republics such as India and the Republic of South Africa, Monarchies like Fiji, Dominions like Canada and Australia, and emerging third world powers like Nigeria, and commercial centres like Singapore. Her Majesty is not Head of State of all of these countries, but she is Head of the Commonwealth.
Mozambique is part of the Commonwealth, even though the British flag never flew there. It came in as a side deal when South Africa rejoined the Commonwealth after South Africa became a full democracy.
ADVANTAGES OF THE COMMONWEALTH:
If a Commonwealth country has an issue on another continent, there are friends on that continent to whom it can turn for friendly advice and sometimes discreet friendly lobbying.
As Zimbabwe is finding, and Pakistan and Nigeria before that, the united Commonwealth is a formidable bloc to encourage or discourage certain developments. When a country is criticised by a predominantly non-white Commonwealth it is hard to claim racism or colonialism convincingly.
WHY SHOULD THE USA JOIN?
The USA has slowly realised that it cannot act alone as a world power. Even world powers need friends. And frankly sometimes it has to be your best friend who tells you home truths in a private setting. What goes on the fringes of Commonwealth meetings is hugely significant. Side deals to open markets, grant scholarships, and organise placements and training in advanced countries outside any normal rules all help.
ARE THERE DIFFICULTIES?
The USA may have to understand that in the Commonwealth economic strength and population size and military capacity are all part of the picture. In every family every sibling gets a look in, and the bigger siblings cannot just push everyone around. Britain and India and Nigeria and South Africa earn respect not only for what they contribute but also for how they behave.
Americans will be able to learn these new forms of diplomacy. Threatening, destabilising, and encouraging military coups are not the way the Commonwealth does things. Reason, encouragement, and mutual help, being part of a shared family, and like siblings looking out for each others interests are what makes the Commonwealth work.
The Americans can learn to behave this way, and might even learn to transfer these techniques and approaches to their diplomacy generally.
Are the Americans big enough to join a community of adults? Yes, if they want to.
The Queen or King can be said to have three main roles: Constitutional, Ceremonial and Ambassadorial.
Constitutionally the Queen is suppose to be kept informed, advise and warn the government of the day. Her actual Constitutional Powers (reserve powers) are:
-Call and dismiss parliament/elections
-Appoint the Prime Minister
-Sack the Government
-Head of Church (The Sovereign holds the title ‘Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England’. There are many examples of the relationship between the established Church and the State. Archbishops and bishops are appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, who considers the names selected by a Church Commission. They take an oath of allegiance to The Queen on appointment and may not resign without Royal authority.),
-Head of the Armed Forces (The Queen as Sovereign is Head of the Armed Forces. She is also the wife, mother and grandmother of individuals either having served, or are currently serving, in the Armed Forces. The Queen is the only person to declare war and peace. This dates back from when the Monarch was responsible for raising, maintaining and equipping the Army and Navy.),
-Refuse Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament so they can not become law and Orders-in-Council and Royal Proclamations which are drawn up by the government of the day so they can exercise the Royal Prerogatives which covers:
In domestic matters,
- the issuing and withdrawal of passports
- the appointment and dismissal of ministers
- the appointment of Queen’s Counsel
- the granting of honours
- the appointment and regulation of the civil service
- the commissioning of officers in the armed forces
In foreign affairs, it covers
- the declaration of war
- the making of treaties
- the recognition of foreign states
- the accreditation of diplomats
Prerogative powers were formerly exercised by the monarch acting alone. Since the 19th century, the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet "who are then accountable to Parliament for the decision has been required in order for the prerogative to be exercised. The monarch is constitutionally empowered to exercise the Royal Prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet, but does so only in emergencies or where existing precedent does not adequately apply to the circumstances in question.
The Queen also fulfils ceremonial duties and ambassadorial ones as Head of State.
The rest of the Royal family fill in for the Queen when she can not be in two places at once. This can be useful especially when you have 16 realms you reign over. This allows for the other Royals to start to learn how to perform many of the Queen’s duties for if/when they inherit the throne.
The rest of this post is an obvious cut and paste job. Do you have a real response or do you think you can get win an argument by posting walls of text?
Term limits don’t prevent an “entrenched Congress”, they just create a class of entrenched lobbyists who aren’t elected and who have the real power because by the time the elected people learn how to do the job, they’re term-limited.
PS:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/america-needs-a-king-101691.html#.Us595_uIq1s
MAC Lipstick - Women's Group for Make-Up, Lipstick, Skin Care and Diamond Rings When the US collapses due to its own stupidity (which could be in 1-5 years according to economists) it might as well surrender itself to Canada lol.
http://topinfopost.com/2013/06/16/the-united-states-of-america-a-failing-superpower
http://www.romania-insider.com/more-than-1000-march-in-support-of-monarchy-reinstatement-in-romania/109227/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/01/australia-had-a-government-shutdown-once-it-ended-with-the-queen-firing-everyone-in-parliament/
BTW: Australia used to be a Republic, now they are not because it was quite regretted lol.
Emily,
For me to leave this open, it has to be a matter of actual debate. Simply cutting and pasting answers from elsewhere - or just posting links for that matter - does not rise to that level.
I’ll give this a little more rope…but if you don’t attempt to actually defend your position I’m going to pull the plug.
Well, yeah kind of, but as for me winning; I don’t really care? This is not a game lol. I am right, I mean if you would just fully read all of it; then you may just realize the truth.
So copying and pasting does not defend the debate? Wow lol ok then, even though what I’m saying is true and correct.
If nominated, I won’t believe it, if elected, I would be assassinated so fast, it wouldn’t be worth it. Be one hell of a weekend, though…