The United States and Monarchy

[COUNTESS]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

Not true, Mbruno - many of my ancestors were founders of Acadia. Their descendants were thrown out of what is now Nova Scotia in 1755 at the beginning of the Seven Years' War, aka the French and Indian War. The British did not want them there because they were Roman Catholic and would not swear allegiance to King George III. They made there way to pro-Catholic Spanish territory in what is now the state of Louisiana in the US. So not exactly true - many of my ancestors were thrown out of Canada.

Yes, you are right. Our gain.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Yes, you are right. Our gain.

Yes it was

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

On the contrary, I think the presidential system of government is notoriously bad. The role of Head of State, which is mostly ceremonial in nature and should be ideally non-partisan, should not be merged with the role of Head of Government, which, in a democracy, is necessarily political and partisan.

I watched "The West Wing" for the first time last year. I have never studied American politics, formally or informally, and my knowledge of how the US presidential system operates is largely based on that show. Though I had previously been aware that the US President was a much more powerful person than heads of state under different forms of presidential system, the details were hazy.

The thing that struck me watching "The West Wing" - and please remember that this is my perception formed watching a TV show - is that the US seems to be run by one man and a cabinet of people who are appointed by the president but not elected by the people, and a lot of other unelected advisors. I find that very strange. I find the election process for president very confusing with its electoral colleges, and primaries and caucuses varying from state to state and stretching out over several months. It seems to be a hellishly expensive process and confuses me terribly.

I am used to a monarchy with a government run by elected representatives. Our head of state and her representative here are benign and their role is largely ceremonial. They don't interfere with the running of the country. I find it very difficult to wrap my brain around the concept of a US type presidential system, and I think it is unlikely to ever happen here. I am sure that we will always have a Westminster System.

[Pranter]

You have to remember that a good many things you see from the American government are not according to the Constitution. Government has usurped more power than it was ever intended to, at least some things that are going on are in direct conflict to the Constitution.

A study of the Constitution might be less confusing as a means to understand how it's supposed to work.


LaRae

[Skippyboo]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

I watched "The West Wing" for the first time last year. I have never studied American politics, formally or informally, and my knowledge of how the US presidential system operates is largely based on that show. Though I had previously been aware that the US President was a much more powerful person than heads of state under different forms of presidential system, the details were hazy.

The thing that struck me watching "The West Wing" - and please remember that this is my perception formed watching a TV show - is that the US seems to be run by one man and a cabinet of people who are appointed by the president but not elected by the people, and a lot of other unelected advisors. I find that very strange. I find the election process for president very confusing with its electoral colleges, and primaries and caucuses varying from state to state and stretching out over several months. It seems to be a hellishly expensive process and confuses me terribly.

I am used to a monarchy with a government run by elected representatives. Our head of state and her representative here are benign and their role is largely ceremonial. They don't interfere with the running of the country. I find it very difficult to wrap my brain around the concept of a US type presidential system, and I think it is unlikely to ever happen here. I am sure that we will always have a Westminster System.

The people who the President (elected by the people) to various positions in the cabinet, federal judges, ambassadors, Supreme Court Justices all have to get their appointments confirmed by the US Senate (elected by the people).

The US President is powerful but is still dependent on the Congress especially because the funding of the government.

The West Wing show was only focusing on the executive branch, there are 2 other branches in the legislative and judicial branches to have a series of checks and balances.

David Cameron wasn't directly elected by the people of the U.K. The Conservative party picked him and more people voted more seats to conservative MP. You are only voting for your MP seats. In the US, you vote for your house members, 2 senators and a President. That's 4 people who you elect versus 1 in the UK federal government wise.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

The people who the President (elected by the people) to various positions in the cabinet, federal judges, ambassadors, Supreme Court Justices all have to get their appointments confirmed by the US Senate (elected by the people).

The US President is powerful but is still dependent on the Congress especially because the funding of the government.

The West Wing show was only focusing on the executive branch, there are 2 other branches in the legislative and judicial branches to have a series of checks and balances.

David Cameron wasn't directly elected by the people of the U.K. The Conservative party picked him and more people voted more seats to conservative MP. You are only voting for your MP seats. In the US, you vote for your house members, 2 senators and a President. That's 4 people who you elect versus 1 in the UK federal government wise.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

The POTUS is not directly elected either. Americans do not vote for president; instead, they vote for presidential electors (the members of the Electoral College), who then elect the president.

In the UK, the people elect members of the House of Commons and also MEPs (in the European parliament elections) , local councillors, and members of the regional legislatures when applicable.

In Ireland, which is a parliamentary republic, the people elect directly the President (who is the ceremonial Head of State), the members of the lower House of Parliament, the members of the European Parliament, and local councillors. In Australia, which is a monarchy, the members of the House of Representatives and the federal Senate are both directly elected and there are direct elections also for state legislatures and local government.

Unfortunately, many Americans are "brainwashed" by the U.S school system into believing that American government is superior to parliamentary government. In fact, quite the opposite is true as the presidential system has an inherent, fumdamental flaw, namely a Head of Government, i.e the President, who has a fixed term of office and is not subject to responsibility (except via the impracticable institution of impreachment).

[Pranter]

IF only most schools even taught about other governmental systems, other than a brief mention. It's (The American government) not even talked about enough in schools to get near the point of 'brainwashing'.


LaRae

[Zonk]

Do they even offer Civic classes these day in schools?

I know I took one when I was in the 7th grade.

Recently, I was talking to someone (can't remember the specifics) and their lack of basic understanding about the 3 branches of government was baffling. I even commented....what are they teaching in schools these days?

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The POTUS is not directly elected either. Americans do not vote for president; instead, they vote for presidential electors (the members of the Electoral College), who then elect the president.

Actually, we do. Yes, the electoral college does elect the president but more often than not, they vote the way the state goes. So if Candidate X wins a majority of the votes in the state of California, than conventional wisdom indicates that all of California's electoral votes should go to Candidate X. Most states are all or nothing states. There are a couple of states that base their electoral votes on percentages.

Basically our founding fathers in all of their wisdom (and I am not trying to be snarky they did some good things), didn't trust the common man. Hence the Electoral College.

[Pranter]

Nope Zonk they don't...not here. You can graduate blissfully unaware of how your state and federal government operate.

Based on direct comments from teachers (friends/relatives who teach in public schools) they are mostly teaching to pass the testing. If it's not on the mandated tests they probably won't be covering it.


Also will point out, for those who don't know, up until the (I forget which) Amendment (IIRC) Americans did not vote for president. They voted in local/state elections. The senators (2 I tihnk) of their state voted on behalf of the state, for president.




LaRae

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by Pranter

You have to remember that a good many things you see from the American government are not according to the Constitution. Government has usurped more power than it was ever intended to, at least some things that are going on are in direct conflict to the Constitution.

A study of the Constitution might be less confusing as a means to understand how it's supposed to work.


LaRae

What exactly is going in direct conflict with the constitution? Remember - words can be interpreted differently by different people.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Nope Zonk they don't...not here. You can graduate blissfully unaware of how your state and federal government operate.

Based on direct comments from teachers (friends/relatives who teach in public schools) they are mostly teaching to pass the testing. If it's not on the mandated tests they probably won't be covering it.


Also will point out, for those who don't know, up until the (I forget which) Amendment (IIRC) Americans did not vote for president. They voted in local/state elections. The senators (2 I tihnk) of their state voted on behalf of the state, for president.




LaRae

Not exactly correct - only white men could vote through the Civil War. Then legislation was enacted to include black men, but the populace of the US, especially in the South, had their own agenda about that. Women weren't allowed to vote until 1920, before that they could vote if they owned a substantial amount of land.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

Not exactly correct - only white men could vote through the Civil War. Then legislation was enacted to include black men, but the populace of the US, especially in the South, had their own agenda about that. Women weren't allowed to vote until 1920, before that they could vote if they owned a substantial amount of land.

Actually what you are talking about is a separate issue.


LaRae

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

What exactly is going in direct conflict with the constitution? Remember - words can be interpreted differently by different people.

Presidents circumventing the other two branches to try to enact laws etc.

If there is any interpreting to be done it should be done using the meanings of the men who wrote it. Not coming up with new meanings because it doesn't suit them.

LaRae

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Presidents circumventing the other two branches to try to enact laws etc.

If there is any interpreting to be done it should be done using the meanings of the men who wrote it. Not coming up with new meanings because it doesn't suit them.

LaRae

Well none of those men is still living, but I am sure even back then there were slightly different interpretations between different "clicks" of those men. Even after that, there have been different interpretations and it has been the job of US Supreme Court, if called upon to do so, to interpret the US Constitution and laws and render decisions based upon their interpretation. Even then, usually based upon their political party affiliation, this government branch hardly hands decisions unanimously. My point - an interpretation of the US Constitution is as varied as the people interpreting it. :p:)

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Actually what you are talking about is a separate issue.


LaRae

How is it a separate issue - yes, people of the US have always voted. At the beginning of this country, usually only wealthy white men voted. This expanded over the years to include all white men who were literate (enough). Senators never voted in place of their constituents for their constituents. So no its not a separate issue - it is in reference to the issue you discussed in your original post. 🐣🐮🐴🐵

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

Well none of those men is still living, but I am sure even back then there were slightly different interpretations between different "clicks" of those men. Even after that, there have been different interpretations and it has been the job of US Supreme Court, if called upon to do so, to interpret the US Constitution and laws and render decisions based upon their interpretation. Even then, usually based upon their political party affiliation, this government branch hardly hands decisions unanimously. My point - an interpretation of the US Constitution is as varied as the people interpreting it. :p:)

Um yeah they are since it's been done by more than one president in the past 50 years. The sitting president has done it most recently.


LaRae

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

How is it a separate issue - yes, people of the US have always voted. At the beginning of this country, usually only wealthy white men voted. This expanded over the years to include all white men who were literate (enough). Senators never voted in place of their constituents for their constituents. So no its not a separate issue - it is in reference to the issue you discussed in your original post. ��������

Article II of the Constitution reads in part: “Each state shall appoint, such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors…” In other words, it is the state legislature and not the citizens of a particular state that determine which presidential candidate receives that state’s electoral votes. In the early decades of the country, several state legislatures actually appointed electors to the Electoral College, rather than hold popular elections in their state.

American adults living in states typically can vote, but they do not have a federally protected right to vote enshrined in the Constitution. States protect the right to vote to different degrees based on the state’s constitutional language and statutes. The federal government traditionally only steps in to prevent certain broad abuses, such as denying the right to vote based on race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), or age (26th Amendment).


LaRae

[Zonk]

Let's get back on topic....the United States and the Monarchy.

Discussion regarding the US Constitution should be in context on how it would or would not work with a Monarchy.

Any and all off topic posts will be deleted without notice.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by Pranter

Article II of the Constitution reads in part: “Each state shall appoint, such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors…” In other words, it is the state legislature and not the citizens of a particular state that determine which presidential candidate receives that state’s electoral votes. In the early decades of the country, several state legislatures actually appointed electors to the Electoral College, rather than hold popular elections in their state.

American adults living in states typically can vote, but they do not have a federally protected right to vote enshrined in the Constitution. States protect the right to vote to different degrees based on the state’s constitutional language and statutes. The federal government traditionally only steps in to prevent certain broad abuses, such as denying the right to vote based on race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), or age (26th Amendment).


LaRae

Honestly, the "electors" echo the electoral college, hence the name, and the reason for the amendments. Anyway, 'nuff said about that. No, our Constitution was written to rid the colonies of the British monarchy, and specifically, the British monarch, who had more governmental authority at that time. The Boston Tea Party was very mild compared to today's manner of government opposition. Rioting, theft, and chaos seem to be the way certain groups handle their anger. So the ability for those of different races being represented in and elected to various offices/positions in the US government goes very far in maintaining civil obedience. Electing a royal family does nothing for progression of the US, but then again not much does any more. Society as a whole is in the verge of serious castrophe - just sayin.' 🌏🌎🌍

[CyrilVladisla]

Prince Arthur, The Duke of Connaught made a White House visit to call on President Grant in January 1870.