US types, look to the north to see a constitutional monarchy in a North American context. A federal monarchy, even.
Although not North American, Australia’s constitution possibly serves as a better source of comparison with the US.
Santa Claus?
I have heard legends telling of a magical kingdom named Canada.
There have been three examples in recent memory (US election 2000, UK and Australian elections in 2010 when an election did not deliver a clear mandate.
It was clearly apparent through the results in that in this regard, if no other, the US constitutional framers got it wrong and despite the better model being known at the time.
It is the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.
(But I do admire both Elizabeths.)
How is this relevant to the discussion of how crowned republics are better than uncrowned when two of your three examples occurred in crowned republics?
This doesn’t make sense unless you’re either advocating electoral reform, which does need to happen, or advocating that an unelected crowned head should step in to appoint the head of government any time the election results are close or contested, and that is simply insane. It would be going back to an age before the Age of Enlightenment and that is not going to happen in the Western world.
Relevant? Probably it would make more sense if you read the second sentence of the post in the context of the first and were familiar with the events in the UK and Australia.
In case you aren’t, in precis the constitutional monarchies simply and seamlessly got on with daily business of governing whilst the formation of the government was determined, for however long that took. The US required the intervention of SCOTUS because the Head of State is Head of Government and a constitutional deadline had to be met.
Whether the position of Head of State is appointed, elected or inherited is of much less importance than the model of government. Personally I prefer an appointed HoS, but if the electorate determines it to be the nearest descendent of Henry Tudor or whoever wins the Best Film Score Oscar, so be it.
All hail the Imperial House of Brangelina!
At least we’d have a good looking monarchy.
Age of Enlightenment? No, not so long grasshopper.
Isn’t that (with the exception of the titular “crowned”) exactly what happened in USA2000?
You might call it insane, I’d describe it as the direct consequence of a flawed model.
Royal scandals are more entertaining than presidential scandals.
Berlusconi is trying, but he is just not in the same league as the Hanovers or the Windsors.
I don’t know about a constitutional monarchy, but the Westminster system of government (at least as modified in Australia) does seem to be a much better system.
You need not have a monarch, just a head of state with the power to prorouge Parliament (or Congress, or whatever you’d call it.) There’s less gridlock, for one thing. The requirement to work together with the party in power to pass supply bills or you all get outsed and get to earn your job back is a powerful motivator to get on with government and stop sniping. I think the US could do with some of that.
The problem with the US system is that the constitutional framers, in their zeal to never again have another king (understandable zeal, to be fair) did too good a job with checks and balances. There’s no final authority. So you get what you get now - a lot of yelling but no governing.
Additionally, in Australia the system of preferential voting ensures that the makeup of Parliament is more like what the makeup of the actual populace is. Of course there is still a two party system (or three, if you count the Coalition as two) but other parties are at least represented. I think the US would do better if the choice wasn’t him or that other guy.
I used to be an ardent defender of the US system, and I got into a lot of arguments here because of it, but now I think I was wrong.
So no, not a constitutional monarchy. But Westminster, yes.
I think one of the greatest strengths of the US system is that it takes a clear mandate for wholesale change. Imagine if we had a parliamentary system. Just in this decade, you would have had Bush completely revamp the social security system, outlaw gay marriage, bring prayer back to school, outlaw abortion, etc. and then have the Dems take over in 2006 and undo all of it. Then the GOP comes back in 2010 and changes the system back.
At least now, it would take a consistent, probably 10 year consistent mandate before either party could even begin to have a wholesale policy change. And even then, they can’t go crazy because the Supreme Court is there to put a stop to the more outlandish stuff.
I like the checks and balances and the slow changes. By definition, any government action restricts the freedom of somebody. In a free society, that choice should only be made after careful deliberation, reflection, and a general agreement from most people.
It’s a daft idea.
We (humans) have tried the single, overall leader type government ten thousand times before. Once we’ve tried a few thousand versions of “government by the people” I’d be willing to have another look at a Monarchy, in theory.
Is that what you think happens in the UK? What makes you think Bush would have that kind of power under the Westminster system (presumably you’re imagining he would be Prime Minister)? I’m not saying you’re wrong about legislation passing more quickly/smoothly, but if we suddenly got a crackpot religious extremist in Downing Street, he’s going to have one hell of a job convincing his cabinet, party back benchers, opposition parties (plural) and upper house to pass such extremist legislation at this point in history (apart from the social security stuff as I don’t know what that entails in your part of the world). The whole point of having a PM rather than a president is that the world doesn’t revolve around the whims of one man.
Let’s try this;
Allow states the choice of implementing a ceremonial Monarchy with no real power.
Imagine 5…10…40 states each with their own Kings and Queens. Able to grant knighthoods (only valid in that state).
Would be a hoot on certain levels.
A constitutional monarchy does not automatically imply government by the monarch, any more than having an executive president automatically implies a dictatorship.
It may or may not be important in the abstract that central government in the UK is formally exercised on “behalf” of the Crown, rather than “by the people”; but the net result is the same. The simplest proof of this is that a change of monarch doesn’t bring about any change in the membership of the government, let alone in its policy, whereas general elections routinely bring about changes in both.
And there’s nothing even to prevent a constitutional monarchy from formally being “government by the people”. For example:
True, but hardly a good argument for why a nation like the US would need a monarch. If the office doesn’t do anything, why have it? I’m guessing that anyone calling for the creation of a monarch isn’t just looking for someone to lead parades and wear funny hats. And we already have plenty of people doing the sex scandal thing. That’s covered already.
That I would agree with.
You misunderstand how the Westminster system works. None of those things would have happened. The factions, the backbenchers, the parties holding the balance of power, all those things would have worked to prevent it (as I see SanVito has pointed out.)
The main thing Westminster has that the US system does not have is someone to be a tiebreaker. It’s happened once in Australia, in 110 years since Federation. And then only for supply bills. But it forces parties to find compromises, which our system does not facilitate. It also allows a variety of other voices - you said you want general agreement from most people, but I don’t think the US system provides that, with it’s ridgid, two party, polar opposites. The middle is not well represented, and that is where most people lie. That’s the strength of Westminster and the weakness of the US system, and having lived under both, I prefer Westminster.
Academic discussion, though, it would never happen in the US.