The United States and Monarchy

[CSENYC]

The good thing about the US federal government is that it has 3 branches: executive (the president), legislative (Congress) and judicial (the Supreme Court). They all somewhat keep each other in check, particularly when a crazy radical takes over one of the branches (usually the executive or legislative).


I agree with mbruno that a presidential system isn't good in that it merges a head of state job (which doesn't need to be political) with a head of government job (which is political). I see no reason to do that. We should eliminate the Vice President job (which is just a ceremonial job, mostly, and serves no purpose except to vote on ties in the Senate) and create a separate head of state job instead.


And whatever the pros or cons of a presidential/US-style government versus a Westminster system, the US method sure isn't working these days. The US is going to pot in part because of its government.

[CSENYC]

And since I can't edit my prior post/rambling:








I find a Westminster system frightening because it seems to give one party full control over the country. If we had a system like that in the US, we'd need to find a way to block the crazies who could take over government; currently, we block the crazies by having 3 branches of government and non-overlapping terms of their members. If we had a Westminster system and a monarchy, we'd need a king or queen who would have real power to block the crazies from taking action: like a constitutional referee or umpire, with the ability to veto acts that were unconstitutional, perhaps following the advice of neutral experts. I'd guess that Queen Elizabeth has such powers in theory, but she never uses them.

[Roslyn]

We also have three three branches of government in a Westminster system, you know. I could say more will leave that to someone with a finer grasp of the workings of government.

What I will say though is that there is one very good reason for you to have a Vice-President: so we can have Veep!

[COUNTESS]

Originally Posted by CSENYC

The good thing about the US federal government is that it has 3 branches: executive (the president), legislative (Congress) and judicial (the Supreme Court). They all somewhat keep each other in check, particularly when a crazy radical takes over one of the branches (usually the executive or legislative).


I agree with mbruno that a presidential system isn't good in that it merges a head of state job (which doesn't need to be political) with a head of government job (which is political). I see no reason to do that. We should eliminate the Vice President job (which is just a ceremonial job, mostly, and serves no purpose except to vote on ties in the Senate) and create a separate head of state job instead.


And whatever the pros or cons of a presidential/US-style government versus a Westminster system, the US method sure isn't working these days. The US is going to pot in part because of its government.

Actually, our nation has the strongest economy in the world. We came out of the recession well, and the things aren't working nonsense is from a political party that isn't working and has candidates they are lunatics. But we always right ourselves. Frankly, the Head of State should be it's President, not some show piece, without power. And as I look at countries, as Australia, Canada etc., who have a Head of State (the Queen) who is a foreigner, makes no sense.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by CSENYC

The good thing about the US federal government is that it has 3 branches: executive (the president), legislative (Congress) and judicial (the Supreme Court). They all somewhat keep each other in check, particularly when a crazy radical takes over one of the branches (usually the executive or legislative).


I agree with mbruno that a presidential system isn't good in that it merges a head of state job (which doesn't need to be political) with a head of government job (which is political). I see no reason to do that. We should eliminate the Vice President job (which is just a ceremonial job, mostly, and serves no purpose except to vote on ties in the Senate) and create a separate head of state job instead.


And whatever the pros or cons of a presidential/US-style government versus a Westminster system, the US method sure isn't working these days. The US is going to pot in part because of its government.

I disagree with your 2nd paragraph. The US is going to pot because of people within the US knowing how to play the welfare (hand-out) system. Also, the US has too many people coming into the country expecting our government to care of them for the rest of their lives. Yes, the US govt sticks their nose into other countries' business entirely too much, but many other governments in the world EXPECT a handout from tax-paying US citizens courtesy of the govt. We can barely take care of citizens of this country much less everybody in the rest of the world and want my govt to mind it's own business.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Actually, our nation has the strongest economy in the world. We came out of the recession well, and the things aren't working nonsense is from a political party that isn't working and has candidates they are lunatics. But we always right ourselves. Frankly, the Head of State should be it's President, not some show piece, without power. And as I look at countries, as Australia, Canada etc., who have a Head of State (the Queen) who is a foreigner, makes no sense.

I don't understand your need to insult countries whose system of government is different from yours. You don't understand why some would chose to have a monarchy - you've made that very clear. But the fact remains that we chose to and it works for us. So why continually take pot shots at them?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

We also have three three branches of government in a Westminster system, you know. I could say more will leave that to someone with a finer grasp of the workings of government.

What I will say though is that there is one very good reason for you to have a Vice-President: so we can have Veep!

The three levels in the Westminster system are:

executive - the GG and cabinet in Australia and I assume other overseas realms and the Privy Council in the UK (remember the Privy Council includes the PM and Leader of the Opposition and other leading politicians and they sit for life

legislative - the actual houses of parliament who pass the laws

judicial - who can rule on the legality and constitutionality of laws - certainly that is one of the roles of the Australian High Court.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

The three levels in the Westminster system are:

executive - the GG and cabinet in Australia and I assume other overseas realms and the Privy Council in the UK (remember the Privy Council includes the PM and Leader of the Opposition and other leading politicians and they sit for life

legislative - the actual houses of parliament who pass the laws

judicial - who can rule on the legality and constitutionality of laws - certainly that is one of the roles of the Australian High Court.

I believe it's the same in Canada.

[Lady Nimue]

The US Vice President was originally the one who came in second in the national election for president. Making the Vice Presidential role more formal was a correction to the system as originally laid out.

Originally Posted by NotHRH

The US is going to pot because of people within the US knowing how to play the welfare (hand-out) system.

For clarity: it is not the genuine poor who are causing the problem (welfare fraud at that level is small potatoes) but the wealthy (the super-rich) who are draining this country of it's treasure while giving nothing back themselves. It's the corporate welfare system that is causing this country (USA) to 'go to pot'.

Originally Posted by NotHRH

Also, the US has too many people coming into the country expecting our government to care of them for the rest of their lives.

When this country starts losing it's immigrants (which it is starting to do from the countries south of us) it will be the beginning of a sad day. Our vitality as a nation is rooted in a healthy sustained immigration across the decades and two plus centuries. As for what such immigrants 'expect', it's usually freedom from fear, torture, and war and an expectation to work hard, sometimes doing the dirtiest and most exhausting jobs. They get nothing from our government that our own poor do not get (if they are poor) which is a sad day for all of us.

Originally Posted by NotHRH

Yes, the US govt sticks their nose into other countries' business entirely too much, but many other governments in the world EXPECT a handout from tax-paying US citizens courtesy of the govt. We can barely take care of citizens of this country much less everybody in the rest of the world and want my govt to mind it's own business.

Start paying attention to the military budget. That's where our treasure is going down the drain: into armaments and war (and those hand outs to foreign dictators). The percentage of our national budget going into 'guns' is close to 60%. It's a national disgrace, and the condition for collapse of every other 'empire' in the past: over extension.

I usually don't talk politics on this site, but I couldn't resist today.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

The three levels in the Westminster system are:

executive - the GG and cabinet in Australia and I assume other overseas realms and the Privy Council in the UK (remember the Privy Council includes the PM and Leader of the Opposition and other leading politicians and they sit for life

legislative - the actual houses of parliament who pass the laws

judicial - who can rule on the legality and constitutionality of laws - certainly that is one of the roles of the Australian High Court.

Yes, though that wasn't what I hoped someone like you might address in more detail. I had in mind other aspects of the post to which I was replying, about how the Westminster System operates, and the crazies taking over.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

Yes, though that wasn't what I hoped someone like you might address in more detail. I had in mind other aspects of the post to which I was replying, about how the Westminster System operates, and the crazies taking over.

As I was replying during my lunch break I did a quick overview. I will do a more detailed one when I get home later tonight - but a staff meeting is calling....

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue

The US Vice President was originally the one who came in second in the national election for president. Making the Vice Presidential role more formal was a correction to the system as originally laid out.



For clarity: it is not the genuine poor who are causing the problem (welfare fraud at that level is small potatoes) but the wealthy (the super-rich) who are draining this country of it's treasure while giving nothing back themselves. It's the corporate welfare system that is causing this country (USA) to 'go to pot'.



When this country starts losing it's immigrants (which it is starting to do from the countries south of us) it will be the beginning of a sad day. Our vitality as a nation is rooted in a healthy sustained immigration across the decades and two plus centuries. As for what such immigrants 'expect', it's usually freedom from fear, torture, and war and an expectation to work hard, sometimes doing the dirtiest and most exhausting jobs. They get nothing from our government that our own poor do not get (if they poor) which is a sad day for all of us.



Start paying attention to the military budget. That's where our treasure is going down the drain: into armaments and war (and those hand outs to foreign dictators). The percentage of our national budget going into 'guns' is close to 60%. It's a national disgrace, and the condition for collapse of every other 'empire' in the past: over extension.

I usually don't talk politics on this site, but I couldn't resist today.

Again, I disagree with you - but this is the wrong format to debate US politics. To stay on topic, I will state that the US already wastes too much money. So to waste it on a Head of Government and a Head of State (along with other members of the Head of State's family) plus all of govt waste on the taxpayers' dimes - not a good idea.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by Ish

I don't understand your need to insult countries whose system of government is different from yours. You don't understand why some would chose to have a monarchy - you've made that very clear. But the fact remains that we chose to and it works for us. So why continually take pot shots at them?

It may be a cultural thing, but I do not find Countess' post contained any insult at all. She was stating her opinions/feelings about this discussion topic. I thought that in Canada, along with other with a few other countries in the British Commonwealth, there is real consideration being given by it's citizens as whether to remain with the Commonwealth. This is one topic in the Royal Forums in which you write your opinion and there was not one mean, hateful, brutual, cruel, or insensitive thing written in Countess' post. Critiquing another form of govt is not insulting it; she was only stating her opinion and, to me, if you're insulted, then that's on you. In the US, opinionated political insults are a dime a dozen and can be very brutual and almost cruel - her words were very gentle and very tame and IMO were in no way insulting toward Canada or Canadians.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

It may be a cultural thing, but I do not find Countess' post contained any insult at all. She was stating her opinions/feelings about this discussion topic. I thought that in Canada, along with other with a few other countries in the British Commonwealth, there is real consideration being given by it's citizens as whether to remain with the Commonwealth. This is one topic in the Royal Forums in which you write your opinion and there was not one mean, hateful, brutual, cruel, or insensitive thing written in Countess' post. Critiquing another form of govt is not insulting it; she was only stating her opinion and, to me, if you're insulted, then that's on you. In the US, opinionated political insults are a dime a dozen and can be very brutual and almost cruel - her words were very gentle and very tame and IMO were in no way insulting toward Canada or Canadians.

I don't think there is any serious consideration in either Australia or Canada about leaving the Commonwealth. There is a strong republican movement in Australia (and a somewhat feeble one in Canada), but that has nothing to do with leaving the Commonwealth. In fact, most Commonwealth member countries are republics.

Likewise, a country does not have to be a monarchy to have a parliamentary system of government or to separate the offices of Head of State and Head of Government. Germany, Italy and Israel for example are parliamentary republics with a ceremonial president as Head of State and a prime minister ( in Germany, the federal chancellor) as Head of Government.

[Mbruno]

BTW, going back to Rosyln's point about the West Wing, what she meant is that, in the US, the president is a one-person executive, with unelected cabinet members that he appoints (with the advice and consent of the Senate) and fires at will. In Australia, or Canada, or the UK, the PM also picks the other cabinet ministers, but cabinet members are also elected MPs who normally represent different factions of the majority party in the elected house. The executive branch resembles much more a collegiate body than a single-person autocracy then. The PM nowadays is probably more than just a "frst among equals" in the Westminster system, but, still, he cannot force his policies without the approval of other cabinet members; if he tries to do so; there is a risk one of the other ministers may actually resign from the cabinet and challenge the PM for the party leadership.

In the UK or Canada, the personal figure of the party leader (i.e. the "de facto" party candidate for the office of PM) is now more important than it used to be in the past. A party with a weak or unpopular leader, for example, has a hard time winning a general election. Nevertheless, there is still less "personalism" than in the US presidential system. I can't imagine a Westminster-system country ever having for example someone like Donald Trump rising to prominence on the national stage based on a direct populist appeal to voters without a national political party structure backing him.

[CSENYC]

Lady Nimue, to help make you feel better:


(1) The US has had some periods of high immigration (1990-today) and some periods of very low/nonexistent immigration (1790-1850 and 1924-1965). During the latter period, when immigration was sharply limited and immigrants were shipped home, we won WWII and put a man on the moon. So a period of lower immigration won't mean that the world will fall apart.


See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...n_1930_to_2000


(2) Military-related spending is certainly not 60% of our national budget. In 2014, defense spending was only 17% of the federal budget; Social Security, healthcare and mandatory interest together were 54%.



See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._-_FY_2011.png

So I hope that you can rest assured that the world isn't falling apart.

This isn't the place to debate immigration or the like, but I just wanted to give you some reassurance about your concerns.

[Muhler]

The idea of an American monarchy intrigues me!

How about a thought experiment?There has been a referendum and the Americans have decided to have a hereditary head of state. The family has been selected, a person from that family who is seen as the most suited to represent the Americans has been selected and the heir has been okayed.
What used to the the office of the president will now be re-titled prime minister. I.e. the political executive who can now focus full time on politics.

Now, you have been charged with outlying this new monarchy and you have completely free hands.

So:

What will be the title of your new head of state?
How should the head of state be addressed?
Your head of state will have four more or less grand residences, where should they be located? I.e. main residence, secondary residence, alternative but smaller residence (the heir's official residence?) and a holiday retreat (akin to Camp David).
How about the succession? Will that always be the firstborn? Should the heir be approved by the Congress and if rejected, the next in line selected?
How many in the "monarch's" family should receive money from the state?
What will be the political or ceremonial role of the head of state be in regards to the Constitution? If any?
What languages is the new head of state expected to speak?
Is the head of state expected to adhere to a specific religion?
Which annual American events would you suggest the head of state to lead? Ceremonial or otherwise.
What do you see as the primary role of the "first-spouse"? I.e. what should (s)he focus primarily on?
Should the new head of state have an annual address, say on Constitution Day?

And so on and so on.

This is your chance to create an ideal monarchy.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Muhler

The idea of an American monarchy intrigues me!

How about a thought experiment?There has been a referendum and the Americans have decided to have a hereditary head of state. The family has been selected, a person from that family who is seen as the most suited to represent the Americans has been selected and the heir has been okayed.
What used to the the office of the president will now be re-titled prime minister. I.e. the political executive who can now focus full time on politics.

Now, you have been charged with outlying this new monarchy and you have completely free hands.

So:

What will be the title of your new head of state?
How should the head of state be addressed?
Your head of state will have four more or less grand residences, where should they be located? I.e. main residence, secondary residence, alternative but smaller residence and a holiday retreat (akin to Camp David).
How about the succession? Will that always be the firstborn? Should the heir be approved by the Congress and if rejected, the next in line selected?
How many in the "monarch's" family should receive money from the state?
What will be the political or ceremonial role of the head of state be in regards to the Constitution? If any?
What languages is the new head of state expected to speak?
Is the head of state expected to adhere to a specific religion?
Which annual American events would you suggest the head of state to lead? Ceremonial or otherwise.
What do you see as the primary role of the "first-spouse"? I.e. what should (s)he focus primarily on?
Should the new head of state have an annual address, say on Constitution Day?

And so on and so on.

This is your chance to create an ideal monarchy.

I don't think it is possible to have a referendum in the United States on replacing the republic with a monarchy. The US constitution says:

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.

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I don't think it is possible to have a referendum in the United States on replacing the republic with a monarchy. The US constitution says:

Yes, but the idea behind this thought experiment is that it has happened.
For whatever reason you've ended up in a situation where the people have demanded a completely new system and now you have a hereditary head of state.

The thought experiment is no different from changing a monarchy to a republic, it requires a major political and public change and constitutional changes as well, but it is still possible.

[Skippyboo]

A simple vote can't change the constitution. The constitution says how it can be changed and it's quite difficult.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community