What purpose does it serve to actually elect a head of state as long as he is limited by the powers of an enlightened constitution and bill of rights (such as our own)? Sure, elect a representative body, headed by a minister of sorts, but why not avoid the partisanship of the head of state position and just have a non-partisan monarch who has:1.) The right to pardon individuals2.) The right to be consulted about new legislation before it is enacted3.) The right to have his/her opinions on issues heard by legislators4.) The right to dissolve Congress and hold new electionsAll of these as a safeguard against abuses of power. I'm not sure how I feel about there being either 1 or 2 chambers of a legislative body (but i know one should be elected, whether it is the only one or one of two chambers). As long as my rights as defined by our constitution and bill of rights are protected from abuse, having a hereditary head of state makes sense, in order to hopefully have a non-partisan leader and give greater power to the constitution (which can still, of course, be amended with the consent of the people through the constituent body).And what happens if we end up with a bad seed in the family? Well, thats why we have the 2nd amendment, right "Parliamentary monarchy fulfills a role which an elected president never can. It formally limits the politicians’ thirst for power because with it the supreme office of the state is occupied once and for all."-- Max Weber
11/1/2006 5:58:13 PM
I fail to see how giving an unelected position the ability to dissolve an elected legislature gives "greater power to the constitution." I wouldn't even want the President to have that power, and you want me to give it to a fucking king?Besides, it does nothing to reduce parisanship. You still have the head of government and everything else to worry about. If anything, it would increase friction by giving people something else to rabidly oppose or support.[Edited on November 1, 2006 at 7:52 PM. Reason : ]
11/1/2006 7:51:00 PM
A constitutional monarchy serves an invaluable purpose: it separates the country's patriotism from the country's chief politician.Case in point, think of how more screwed up Britain would be if the object of their patriotism was toward Tony Blair.
11/1/2006 8:16:31 PM
11/1/2006 10:11:57 PM
11/2/2006 8:12:21 AM
as in, abuses of power by a legislative body which does not serve the best interest of the people, as defined by the constitution. thats what i am most concerned with here.[Edited on November 2, 2006 at 8:18 AM. Reason : .]
11/2/2006 8:14:36 AM
Well, as it was originally intended the U.S. president was supposed to be quasi-non-partisan. Or at the very least, someone worthy of patriotism even if he is from the opposing party. This hope, however, has been thwarted by the huge rise in Executive Power during the 20th century. As it stands now, the President does more than just veto Bills, appoint a few heads, and negotiate treaties. Nope, now the President has direct control over numerous government agencies which directly affect the lives of most Americans. And the wild rise in the use of Executive Orders has given the President quasi-law making ability, a political activity if there ever was one. As it is, we can fix this by creating an independent bureaucracy that does not answer to the President, whose sole purpose is to implement laws as passed. However, I seriously doubt this system would be better, while it would help depoliticise the Presidency I fear bureaucratic efficiency would be lost. One change that does need implimenting would be repealing the 17th Amendment (passed in 1913) and making the Senate once again appointed by local government (as in Sweden). This would restore institutional power to the states and greately aleviate the special interest corruption so prevalent in Washington nowadays.
11/2/2006 8:54:09 AM
11/2/2006 9:00:02 AM
11/2/2006 9:40:02 AM
Remember before USA existed and there were a whole bunch of pissed off people named "colonists"? I'm pretty sure they were pissed off at their monarchy. I don't think they'd like a 'constitutional monarchy' much better.
11/2/2006 11:07:34 AM
Crede, there are plenty of countries operating under constitutional monarchies just fine.It may not be for us, but it doesn't mean it won't work period.__The biggest reason it won't work here is because appointing the 1st monarch would be a bitch. Who would you pick? A Bush? A Kennedy? A lottery winner? lol[Edited on November 2, 2006 at 11:12 AM. Reason : .]
11/2/2006 11:11:52 AM
What works for us is what we need the rest of the world doing. Isn't there some theory about how Democracy is the end result of a progressive society? "Democratic Peace" theory? I don't know, it's been a while since that class.
11/2/2006 11:13:23 AM
Constitutional Monarchy basically is like the US, but with a sole figure who can veto anything, fire anyone, basically think of it like an owner of a company with a committee. The committee runs the day to day but the owner can stop anything he doesn't like.
11/2/2006 11:17:49 AM
Sure, there is a theory for everything.
11/2/2006 11:18:12 AM
Nice articulated response.
11/2/2006 11:20:15 AM
11/2/2006 12:10:32 PM
So, what surrounded the adoption of the Amendment. What benefit was supposed to be bestowed by it?
11/2/2006 12:12:25 PM
Look, you yourself have already explained why your argument about the monarch is stupid:
11/2/2006 12:37:34 PM
There have been instances in British history that the monarch has acted against parliament in defense of the rights of Englishmen, but usually only after a London street riot or two in response to the proposed legislation. At that time the Monarch was acting as an easy escape hatch in the event of severe public discust with a law (usually a new tax), by letting the Monarch undue the law without the need for Parliament to humble itself before the people. This was especially useful when Parliament was being pig-headed, as a small group of white-males that usually only talk to each other can be. Such should not be needed in the American system by virtue of how long it takes to pass a new law; by the time it comes out, people have had years to get used to the idea.
11/2/2006 12:57:55 PM
Having a head of state that is non-elected violates the fundimental concept of accountability to the people that this nation is based on. If our head of state is not elected directly or indirectly (appointed by the Senate or such), how would you pick him or her? Or more importantly, if the monarch did something we didn't approve of, how do you get rid of him or her short of using bloodshed?For most nations, a hereditary head of state works because there is an already existing royal family and a tradition of loyalty to the crown. In these cases, the head of state almost never uses their powers, serving instead more as a living national icon; a symbolic connection to the nation's past. It's hard to imagine it here in the United States with our relatively short history and lack of monarchy, but for nations who's had a ruling family for hundreds of years, the crown is a reminder of what makes the nation unique in an otherwise rapidly homogenizing world.I understand where you're coming from on a theoretical perspective, but realistically, I don't think your idea would work in the United States. We have no tradition of a monarchy, no one who we could appoint, etc.
11/2/2006 3:46:40 PM
11/2/2006 5:28:09 PM
11/2/2006 5:42:19 PM
11/2/2006 6:27:10 PM
Then you wouldn't have it very long.
11/2/2006 10:35:51 PM
Ahhahahha masterstroke ↑
11/2/2006 10:46:29 PM
11/3/2006 12:29:13 AM