[undotwa]

Question: Does the US Constitution prohibit state governments to rule as monarchies?

I would be interested for a good answer .

[MacGorilla]

Not specifically, though good luck trying to set one up.

[SimeyTheLimey]

U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Sec. 4.

Section. 4. 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.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Sec. 4.

Don't forget the clause banning titles of nobility. So monarchies are double prohibited.

A far more interesting question is if it would be possible to change a state over to a parliamentary government.

BlackGriffen

[undotwa]

In Australia, we have two layers of government: (excluding Local) Federal and State. Federal Australia is headed by the Queen, and each individual state has its own monarchy (coincidently headed by the same Queen). I was hypothesing to myself the possibility of dissolving the Federal government and the states going in union with the United States and Australia would become apart of the United States. I was thinking, would this be possible keeping the existing state monarchies? I guess your answer Slimey is no. But is the law really that a monarchy cannot exist under any circumstances?

[Randman]

Under your theory, Australia could become a territory of the United States, but it takes a lot more to gain statehood (ask Puerto Rico). Plus, you'd have to check if there are any federal legislation with the US, Australia and Britain concerning land rights and such which could potentially block your theoretical exercise.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Don't forget the clause banning titles of nobility. So monarchies are double prohibited.

A far more interesting question is if it would be possible to change a state over to a parliamentary government.

BlackGriffen

Actually, the title of nobility thing has some wriggle room. It bans titles bestowed by the United States, but it doesn't seem to ban them if bestowed by one of the states. Then it says that you need the consent of Congress to accept a title, but only if you hold an office of trust. So I suppose a private citizen could accept a title, and a state could grant it.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

But this is academic in light of the republican government clause. As for a parliament, I see no reason why not. Some of the original states had unicameral legislatures prior to the revolution. The governors were appointed from London as representatives of the King. I forget which state it was, but at least one didn't change its Constitution to add a locally-elected governor until some time after the Revolution. So between the Revolution (when the King's governor fled) and when they adopted a new Constitution, it was in effect a Parliamentary democracy with no separate executive. Plus, the United States itself was a parliamentary system under its first constitution. Nobody would say that the Articles of Confederation wasn't a republican government. So I don't see any barrier.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Sec. 4.

Doesn't that more protect the citizens of the United States from being consolidated into one national state moreso than simply giving each state the right to a representative form of government?

It would appear to me that this simply bans the Federal Government from encroaching on states' rights to self governance and perhaps if the citizens of a state voted for a monarchy then they could.

If the United States Constitution guaranteed my right to have a fence in my yard isn't it possible that I don't have to have the fence at all but that the national government simply is prohibited from telling me that I cannot have that fence?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Doesn't that more protect the citizens of the United States from being consolidated into one national state moreso than simply giving each state the right to a representative form of government?

It would appear to me that this simply bans the Federal Government from encroaching on states' rights to self governance and perhaps if the citizens of a state voted for a monarchy then they could.

If the United States Constitution guaranteed my right to have a fence in my yard isn't it possible that I don't have to have the fence at all but that the national government simply is prohibited from telling me that I cannot have that fence?

No, you have it backwards. The purpose was to protect states from external invasion, or internal insurrection of the type seen in Shay's Rebellion, which was fresh in the minds of the Founders at the time the Constitution was written.

Findlaw has annotations of the clause here. But republican government quite definitely means no monarchies.

[Dr.HermanG.]

But it also means that there could never be a single United State, right?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
But it also means that there could never be a single United State, right?

The whole Constitution says there could never be a unitary state. The US is a federal republic.

[davecom]

Originally it was proposed to be "We the States", not "We the People". The separation of powers between states and the federal government is one of our greatest assets. As Jefferson believed, local government is closer to the people. The more local the better. Having a unitary state would reduce diversity in laws and competition between states, that ultimately improves our nation as a whole. Having a single state is a ripe opening for big brother and reduction of individual rights. Especially in a country as vast as the US. Long live the federal system.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Isn't a republic merely a state where the sovereign derives the power from the people? It seems to me that so long as there's elections then any state could argue that the ultimate power comes through direct elections and therefore is a republic.

Isn't it conceivable that the leaders of a state could be chosen for life provided that such decisions were made by the people?

Given that a monarch is a heriditary title then of course there could be no monarchy in any state, however, I would think it possible to create such a government which could be a combination of a democratically elected government with life terms. Then you could have something close to an elected monarchy since we tend to think of monarchs as holding office for life.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Isn't a republic merely a state where the sovereign derives the power from the people?

Which is why it can't be a monarchy. In a monarchy, the sovereign is the Sovereign. Power flows downward from the Soveriegn to his subjects. In a republic, the sovereign is the people. The people then (theoretically) decide among themselves what kind of government to institute between them. So power flows up from the people.

Of course, there is a halfway house of a monarchy where the king is simply a figurehead and actual sovereign authority resides in the people as represented in a Parliament. The Founders were perfectly aware of that alternative, and many of them were quite ardent Whigs before they became thouroughly disillusioned by their experience with the British. In fact, a lot of Revolutionary literature was a little disingenuous. Much of what they ascribed to King George was really the work of Parliament. Their early complaints were directed to Parliament in London against the King, but Parliament was the real origin of the things they complained about.

It's also true that after the Revolution, there was talk briefly about creating a monachy in America. George Washington squashed that idea. But also it is unlikely that the states would have gone along with it. They were used to very much running their own affairs before the Revolution. They weren't giving up their sovereignty easily. That's why it took many years before Americans were ready to adopt something as radical as the current US Constitution. And even then there was a lot of opposition.

Anyway, the bottom line is this: pure monarchies are by definition, antidemocratic. Constitutional monarchies sidestep this by giving all the real power to an elected parliament. In effect, constitutional monarchies imitate a republic for the real business of government. They just keep the monarch as a figurehead. In a country with no tradition of a monarchy, there is no reason or argument for a constitutional monarchy, and even less for a real monarchy. Why take an imitation republic when you already have the real thing? Why take the risk that all monarchies run that the monarch will begin to gather real power in opposition to the people?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by davecom:
Originally it was proposed to be "We the States", not "We the People". The separation of powers between states and the federal government is one of our greatest assets. As Jefferson believed, local government is closer to the people. The more local the better. Having a unitary state would reduce diversity in laws and competition between states, that ultimately improves our nation as a whole. Having a single state is a ripe opening for big brother and reduction of individual rights. Especially in a country as vast as the US. Long live the federal system.

Jefferson had little to do with the Constitution. He was in France when it was written and ratified. Much of what you are saying were his ideas are closer to the ideas of antifederalists like George Mason.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Which is why it can't be a monarchy. In a monarchy, the sovereign is the Sovereign. Power flows downward from the Soveriegn to his subjects. In a republic, the sovereign is the people. The people then (theoretically) decide among themselves what kind of government to institute between them. So power flows up from the people.

Of course, there is a halfway house of a monarchy where the king is simply a figurehead and actual sovereign authority resides in the people as represented in a Parliament. The Founders were perfectly aware of that alternative, and many of them were quite ardent Whigs before they became thouroughly disillusioned by their experience with the British. In fact, a lot of Revolutionary literature was a little disingenuous. Much of what they ascribed to King George was really the work of Parliament. Their early complaints were directed to Parliament in London against the King, but Parliament was the real origin of the things they complained about.

It's also true that after the Revolution, there was talk briefly about creating a monachy in America. George Washington squashed that idea. But also it is unlikely that the states would have gone along with it. They were used to very much running their own affairs before the Revolution. They weren't giving up their sovereignty easily. That's why it took many years before Americans were ready to adopt something as radical as the current US Constitution. And even then there was a lot of opposition.

Anyway, the bottom line is this: pure monarchies are by definition, antidemocratic. Constitutional monarchies sidestep this by giving all the real power to an elected parliament. In effect, constitutional monarchies imitate a republic for the real business of government. They just keep the monarch as a figurehead. In a country with no tradition of a monarchy, there is no reason or argument for a constitutional monarchy, and even less for a real monarchy. Why take an imitation republic when you already have the real thing? Why take the risk that all monarchies run that the monarch will begin to gather real power in opposition to the people?

Each of the Australian states are constitutional monarchies. In a particular clause of the Australian constitution, each state has a right to leave the Commonwealth. Although the state could not in practice do this, if it theoretically does, would that state be able to join the United States while retaining its constitutional monarchy? The Queen does in effect rule at the will of the people, because the Parliament of Australia and of the states exist outside of the British parliament's jurisdiction (since the 30's or so). All that is required to remove the Queen, would be to have a referendum or in the states a poll to change their constitutions. The Queen rules by the will of the people. So?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Which is why it can't be a monarchy. In a monarchy, the sovereign is the Sovereign. Power flows downward from the Soveriegn to his subjects. In a republic, the sovereign is the people. The people then (theoretically) decide among themselves what kind of government to institute between them. So power flows up from the people.

Of course, there is a halfway house of a monarchy where the king is simply a figurehead and actual sovereign authority resides in the people as represented in a Parliament. The Founders were perfectly aware of that alternative, and many of them were quite ardent Whigs before they became thouroughly disillusioned by their experience with the British. In fact, a lot of Revolutionary literature was a little disingenuous. Much of what they ascribed to King George was really the work of Parliament. Their early complaints were directed to Parliament in London against the King, but Parliament was the real origin of the things they complained about.

It's also true that after the Revolution, there was talk briefly about creating a monachy in America. George Washington squashed that idea. But also it is unlikely that the states would have gone along with it. They were used to very much running their own affairs before the Revolution. They weren't giving up their sovereignty easily. That's why it took many years before Americans were ready to adopt something as radical as the current US Constitution. And even then there was a lot of opposition.

Anyway, the bottom line is this: pure monarchies are by definition, antidemocratic. Constitutional monarchies sidestep this by giving all the real power to an elected parliament. In effect, constitutional monarchies imitate a republic for the real business of government. They just keep the monarch as a figurehead. In a country with no tradition of a monarchy, there is no reason or argument for a constitutional monarchy, and even less for a real monarchy. Why take an imitation republic when you already have the real thing? Why take the risk that all monarchies run that the monarch will begin to gather real power in opposition to the people?

Now what gets interesting is when you take these ideas, and throw political parties into the mix.

Is it really true democracy when they all take sides and act as 1 entity?

George Washington would say no (as he mentioned in his fairwell address).

Great discussion overall BTW.

[Atomic Rooster]

Monarchies are racist and non-secular therefore a monarch would not be possible. For instance in the English monarchy the monarch must be from one certain dysfunctional family which is of a certain race (white). And they must also be of the Anglican religion.

No one can strive to grow up and become the king or queen unless you are from the inbred gene pool.

You must also look and walk like you have a broomstick up your butt.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Monarchies are racist and non-secular therefore a monarch would not be possible. For instance in the English monarchy the monarch must be from one certain dysfunctional family which is of a certain race (white). And they must also be of the Anglican religion.

No one can strive to grow up and become the king or queen unless you are from the inbred gene pool.

You must also look and walk like you have a broomstick up your butt.

To be Queen of Great Britain, yes one has to be Anglican. But to be Queen of Australia, there is no such Act of Parliament. There is no established religion in Australia. I don't see why the monarch couldn't marry a black and have black children.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Monarchies are racist and non-secular therefore a monarch would not be possible. For instance in the English monarchy the monarch must be from one certain dysfunctional family which is of a certain race (white). And they must also be of the Anglican religion.

No one can strive to grow up and become the king or queen unless you are from the inbred gene pool.

You must also look and walk like you have a broomstick up your butt.

That's not completely true in this generation. Certainly during this current Queen's early days. The title of the British monarch is 'Defender of the Faith' which refers to the Anglican church. But Prince Charles has embraced all religions and said if he was king he would change it to 'Defenders of the Faiths'. Queen Victoria herself was quite open about religion, very inquisitive about eastern religion and actually spoke fluent Hindi. I wish I could hear that.

Prince Philip himself is from a Greek and Russian Orthodox background, Elizabeth from a German Catholic family. Philip is also head of the Freemasons in Britain which is secular and has members from all backgrounds. He is racist though, seems to enjoy it too. What makes me really laugh about this character is that he's head of the WWF that is supposed to protect wild life. But he shoots birds and hunts foxes.

Can you become a monarch? Well, a couple of centuries ago my ancestors on my Italian side became counts and barons of Belforte. And the amazing thing was that they were Sephardic Jews who fled Spain during the Inquisition. But like other Jews in Italy and Spain at the time they appeared outwardly as Catholics. After a short time in Italy they ousted the San Vitale family. I read that a duel was fought, you know, gentlemen **** your pistols type of thing.

50 years later Napoleon conquered Italy and that was the end of my family's position as nobles because he found out that Jews of Belforte were prosperous and introduced a law prohibiting Jews from holding noble titles.

But anyway, it means you can become a noble, or you could in those days, without inbreeding. It's all about money, land and connections. Nowadays in the UK they still give out the titles of Baron and Lord which are noble titles. Margaret Thatcher is a Baroness and there are even Muslims in the House of Lords. So the handing of titles is not based on ethnicity and religion as it used to be.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
That's not completely true in this generation. Certainly during this current Queen's early days. The title of the British monarch is 'Defender of the Faith' which refers to the Anglican church. But Prince Charles has embraced all religions and said if he was king he would change it to 'Defenders of the Faiths'. Queen Victoria herself was quite open about religion, very inquisitive about eastern religion and actually spoke fluent Hindi. I wish I could hear that.

Prince Philip himself is from a Greek and Russian Orthodox background, Elizabeth from a German Catholic family. Philip is also head of the Freemasons in Britain which is secular and has members from all backgrounds. He is racist though, seems to enjoy it too. What makes me really laugh about this character is that he's head of the WWF that is supposed to protect wild life. But he shoots birds and hunts foxes.

Can you become a monarch? Well, a couple of centuries ago my ancestors on my Italian side became counts and barons of Belforte. And the amazing thing was that they were Sephardic Jews who fled Spain during the Inquisition. But like other Jews in Italy and Spain at the time they appeared outwardly as Catholics. After a short time in Italy they ousted the San Vitale family. I read that a duel was fought, you know, gentlemen **** your pistols type of thing.

50 years later Napoleon conquered Italy and that was the end of my family's position as nobles because he found out that Jews of Belforte were prosperous and introduced a law prohibiting Jews from holding noble titles.

But anyway, it means you can become a noble, or you could in those days, without inbreeding. It's all about money, land and connections. Nowadays in the UK they still give out the titles of Baron and Lord which are noble titles. Margaret Thatcher is a Baroness and there are even Muslims in the House of Lords. So the handing of titles is not based on ethnicity and religion as it used to be.

The funny thing is, the title 'Defender of the Faith' (Defensor Fidei) was given by the Pope to King Henry VIII for his writings about the sacraments. He sure defended the Catholic faith very well by seperating from the Church Aswell, the title was never to be hereditary.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Now what gets interesting is when you take these ideas, and throw political parties into the mix.

what's even more interesting is if you consider "plutocracy" and "inherited wealth". together with a bit of the good old corruption and corporate welfare, you've got yourself a rather well functioning 21st century "pseudo" monarchy.

unfortunately the constitution doesn't account for that. meh.

*do what thou whilst shall be the whole of the law*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by undotwa:
would that state be able to join the United States while retaining its constitutional monarchy?

We've been over this: no it could not. All US states are, and under the US Constitution are guaranteed to be, republics. We have a head of state. It's the president. We don't need to import a foreign head of state, least of all the one we fought a war to get away from!

[Millennium]

Originally posted by undotwa:
In Australia, we have two layers of government: (excluding Local) Federal and State. Federal Australia is headed by the Queen, and each individual state has its own monarchy (coincidently headed by the same Queen). I was hypothesing to myself the possibility of dissolving the Federal government and the states going in union with the United States and Australia would become apart of the United States. I was thinking, would this be possible keeping the existing state monarchies? I guess your answer Slimey is no. But is the law really that a monarchy cannot exist under any circumstances?

Probably not. Congress is forbidden to grant titles of nobility, nor to recognize them except for purposes of etiquette. Because of that, it could not recognize state monarchs, and it's kind of hard to run a monarchy when you're not a monarch.

This said, the implementation of the republic is left up to the states, and it's more flexible than it seems at first glance. Most states, for example, follow the bicameral-legislature model, but not all of them do; Nebraska has only a Senate. Most follow a common-law judicial model, but again not all: Louisiana implements civil law instead. I don't think an actual parliamentary system would be allowed, however; the checks and balances between legislature and executive would almost certainly be found inadequate.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Monarchies are racist and non-secular therefore a monarch would not be possible. For instance in the English monarchy the monarch must be from one certain dysfunctional family which is of a certain race (white). And they must also be of the Anglican religion.

No one can strive to grow up and become the king or queen unless you are from the inbred gene pool.

You must also look and walk like you have a broomstick up your butt.

Well, your looking at what's out there, and assuming that to be the law.

As said above, no reason why the monarch couldn't be an athiest of multiple ethnicities.

Your assuming (most likely accurately) that America wouldn't accept that.


But that doesn't mean it's impossible.

[Dr.HermanG.]

I think the time has come to allow a leader to serve longer than 8 years. If we really are a republic then we shouldn't have term limitations.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
I think the time has come to allow a leader to serve longer than 8 years. If we really are a republic then we shouldn't have term limitations.

What?

[itai195]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
I think the time has come to allow a leader to serve longer than 8 years. If we really are a republic then we shouldn't have term limitations.

Yes and we shouldn't set their salaries by law either. I mean, why should a hard working Senator make as much as one who doesn't do anything???

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
I think the time has come to allow a leader to serve longer than 8 years. If we really are a republic then we shouldn't have term limitations.

Promotion to troll.

Then we also shouldn't limit presidential powers. Why not just let them dismiss congress, and the supreme court?


You know Saddam was re-elected 'by the people' with something like 99% of the vote.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Well, your looking at what's out there, and assuming that to be the law.

As said above, no reason why the monarch couldn't be an athiest of multiple ethnicities.

Your assuming (most likely accurately) that America wouldn't accept that.


But that doesn't mean it's impossible.

We see in Republics were monarchies were dismantled that people simply turned to another form of monarch worship. We see people worship actors, musicians and politicians in the same way nobility was. Say one bad word about Bush and Republicans treat you like a heretic or blasphemer as if a President is some sort of 'Defender of the Faith' when in reality in a democracy the President is supposed to be nothing more than a good administrator and accountant, fully accountable and criticised.

There's this weird worship of politicians in the US that I'll never understand. Maybe it is because of the void in people's hearts because their ancestors looked up to monarchs to provide for them. But it doesn't suit a democracy.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
We see in Republics were monarchies were dismantled that people simply turned to another form of monarch worship. We see people worship actors, musicians and politicians in the same way nobility was. Say one bad word about Bush and Republicans treat you like a heretic or blasphemer as if a President is some sort of 'Defender of the Faith' when in reality in a democracy the President is supposed to be nothing more than a good administrator and accountant, fully accountable and criticised.

There's this weird worship of politicians in the US that I'll never understand. Maybe it is because of the void in people's hearts because their ancestors looked up to monarchs to provide for them. But it doesn't suit a democracy.

Ok, I agree 100%.

But this:

Monarchies are racist and non-secular therefore a monarch would not be possible.

Is rather off the wall. What you may mean is:

Racist and non-secular societies tend to favor monarchies.

or

America is to racist and non-secular to succeed with a monarchy.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
I think the time has come to allow a leader to serve longer than 8 years. If we really are a republic then we shouldn't have term limitations.

It's worth noting that term limits were not originally part of the Constitution; it was added in later. Even up to that point, only one person had ever been elected more than twice.

Frankly, though, I believe that term limits are a good idea, to prevent the formation de-facto dynasties and perpetual incumbents who get continually re-elected for decades based on their names rather than their own merits. This behavior is already disgustingly common on both sides in the House and Senate; the last thing we need is for it to spread to the Presidency as well.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Then we also shouldn't limit presidential powers. Why not just let them dismiss congress, and the supreme court?

What a serious straw man. Would you like some hay and gasoline to go with that BS?

If the people want a leader for 12 years, 16 years, 20 years then LET THE PEOPLE decide that.

Term limits are an uncontitutional violation of my right to choose the leader that I think is best for my city, state, or nation.

[itai195]

I actually agree with DrHerman to some extent -- the term limits movement in the 90s was seriously misguided. I do think having term limits for the president is a good idea, though, simply because it's such a powerful position.

[Dr.HermanG.]

If you set term limits for one branch then all branches should have term limits.

POTUS isn't as powerful as you think when you have SCOTUS with a life term and HR/SEN with possible life terms.

I think all three should have the same criteria: either all have term limits or none of them.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
If you set term limits for one branch then all branches should have term limits.

POTUS isn't as powerful as you think when you have SCOTUS with a life term and HR/SEN with possible life terms.

I think all three should have the same criteria: either all have term limits or none of them.

Maybe, maybe not. SCOTUS justices have life terms in order to ensure that they don't need to get involved in politics; their job is to interpret the law, nothing more, nothing less.

You can argue whether the President fits this case as well. The President is an interesting case; some of his duties (Chief of State, Commander-in-Chief) are entirely apolitical, but some of them (maker of foreign policy, executor of law) are very heavily influenced by politics, so it can be argued that a two-term limit is wise: one in which the President is beholden to politics (so that he can be re-elected), and then one in which he is not (because he can't be elected a third time). It's not perfect, but it's the most workable solution.

Either way, though, legislators can't be "freed from politics" without serious potential for abuse. The job of a legislator, be he in the Senate or House of Representatives, is entirely political; indeed, that's most of the point. Let the politicking be done in the Legislature where it belongs, so that the other branches can actually Get Things Done when they are called to do so (this last bit is worth noting: the SCOTUS is completely powerless to act of its own volition).

Then again, the current unlimited state in the legislatures is the major cause of a disgusting amount of incumbency. I blame this in large part on the party-centricity of Congress, which isn't quite as bad as it is in most parliamentary systems, but is still far more than should exist. By pigeonholing people into blank, mindless ideologies, you keep people from really thinking much about who they're voting for. Conversely, by pigeonholing people into ideologies, you shield candidates from really having to speak up about what they stand for, because they can simply hide behind a party platform. Every political party in the history of mankind is guilty of this, as it works to the advantage of all parties and, to a lesser extent, all politicians. But in the end it doesn't work to the advantage of a people who have to practically be dragged kicking and screaming just to think one way or the other about politics. If they have to be dragged, then drag them; take the crutch away.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Millennium:
SCOTUS justices have life terms in order to ensure that they don't need to get involved in politics; their job is to interpret the law, nothing more, nothing less.

Sadly, that just doesn't happen any longer.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Sadly, that just doesn't happen any longer.

Indeed not, though I'd be interested to hear what you would cite as an example. Only the Right dares use the term "judicial activism", and then only for the times when it favors the Left, but the fact is that plenty of it goes on in favor of all sides of the political spectrum.

[Monique]

Do we know what a monarchy is??

If you have elected members like the Governor, state assemblies and elected Mayors and cousellors you cannot possibly have a monarchy in any sense of the word.

As for the UK there is no monarchy so to speak since James the first.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
What a serious straw man. Would you like some hay and gasoline to go with that BS?

If the people want a leader for 12 years, 16 years, 20 years then LET THE PEOPLE decide that.

Term limits are an uncontitutional violation of my right to choose the leader that I think is best for my city, state, or nation.

Because the position holds to much power.

Traditionally, over 40% will always vote to re-elect. The military always votes in this block (many actually feel it violates military law of going against the comander, and could be punished if it were discovered... though the merit of that hasn't been proven). We also have had every president not advertise themselves as a candidate... but as "if you support America, you vote for me".

The presidential office is a giant add. In reality, re-election is pretty much a done deal. It takes heaven and earth to avoid a 2 term president. Especially as the whitehouse becomes more media savvy (wasn't always that way).

To remove a term limit essentially paves the way for president-for-life.

Bush regardless of what happens will end up with a bare minimum of 42% of the popular vote. Even if he were to molest a child on the whitehouse lawn in front of camera's. That's just a sad fact. Nearly half will ALWAYS support the president in office.

Which means, you would always be basing an election on less than 10% of the vote (a swing state or two)... rather than the nation a whole.


Then you have the problem of the effected offices. President appoints several positions. Our nation works because in theory, only so many will come up for a new person in a term.


Let the system swing Left or Right, and our nation suffers. When it hangs around the middle, we have years of prosperity.

By ensuring the president can take no longer than 8 years of office, we can prevent the system from toppling over. Every 8 years, the nation is forced to evaluate itself, and start a new cycle. If it was moving in the right direction... it continues with a candidate that leans that way.

If it's the wrong direction... it's allowed to change.


The only reason our nation has made it this far is because our nation tends to hand in that middle region. That's the reason why our constitution hasn't been ripped up. That's really the only reason. Our constitution does not have anything to really protect itself.


The only way we can ensure the long term viability of democracy as a system is to ensure that the scale is never tipped to far. When it does, you move towards things like anarchy, or totalitarian dictatorship... short of that is violations of human rights, and lawless state.

The only way we can protect our government is to limit terms so the nation re-evaluates itself every 8 years.

In reality, typically an 8 year period is an eternity for a nation. Normally more than 1 economic cycle, most cases a war, or serious conflict, various disasters, etc.


There's a reason why successful businesses don't allow employees to sit in the same exact job to long. They make employees gain new responsibilities, and pass old ones along. Even if there's no promotions, they change resonsibilities... why? Because it keeps people on their toes, forces the management to re-evaluate employees on regular interval, and move towards optimal performance as an entire entity. Most businesses are always trying to get employees to learn new skills, some offer in-house training, others will pay for you to go back to school... why is this successful? It keeps things competitive, and forces re-evaluation. If they don't do this, the company becomes stale and obsolite.

THIS is the exact same concept. Except, we can't have a presidential round robin, allowing several people to take the office as management feels fit.

What we do is called an election. It allows people to select a person they feel meets the needs of the country at the given momment (and looking at projections of the future) and make a decision.

We limit terms so that nobody can warp the future to fit them.

If Mr. X. is a good leader during times of economic uncertainty... how can Mr X.'s party keep themselves in the whitehouse? Well, that's quite easy... economic instability. Can that be achieved? With a little power in congress it can. Is it ethically a major violation of everything our nation stands for? of course. Would it be easy to detect? Not really, not if done well. has it been done? Who knows.

Could do this for anything.

Remember: There's no rule about running again. Just no more than 2 consecutive terms. Could be in office for 8, take 4 years off, and do another 8 if the nation feels your the right person.... normally they don't though. After 4 years of another candidate, normally they feel the ancestor was ok for the time... but not the right person.

IIRC, most people didn't like the idea of Clinton coming back, nor did they like the idea of Bush Sr. rather than Bush Jr.

Why? Because people had a chance to balance the nation out.

Originally posted by Millennium:
Indeed not, though I'd be interested to hear what you would cite as an example. Only the Right dares use the term "judicial activism", and then only for the times when it favors the Left, but the fact is that plenty of it goes on in favor of all sides of the political spectrum.

Good point.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Monique:
Do we know what a monarchy is??

If you have elected members like the Governor, state assemblies and elected Mayors and cousellors you cannot possibly have a monarchy in any sense of the word.

As for the UK there is no monarchy so to speak since James the first.

In Poland, having been united with Lithuania, the King was elected.

The Vatican City has a form of an elected monarchy.

What defines monarchy, empire and republic are very vague.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Because the position holds to much power.

So, let's say there's a national crisis that occurs part way into the second term of a President's term (like another World War, for example). Do you really think it reasonable to force that President out of office while the country is in the middle of a crisis? I don't.

Likewise, if a President's policies are giving us stability and prosperity then why force a change?

For what it's worth SCOTUS has more power than either branch because SCOTUS can nullify any law or bill passed by elected officials. I say if the Justices can have life terms then so be it that the rest of our officials have the same opportunity.

If we take away the lame duck status of a second term President then perhaps we might have more cooperation.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by undotwa:
In Poland, having been united with Lithuania, the King was elected.

The Vatican City has a form of an elected monarchy.

What defines monarchy, empire and republic are very vague.

I pointed out before that a constitutional monarchy as it exists in places like the UK, or the Netherlands, or Australia is really a bifrucated system. They have a government that behaves like a republic for all the important business of governing the people, and a monarchy for the symbolic stuff. That isn't really a monarchy in the theoretical sense. Monique is right. In a true monarchy power derives from the King (usually channeling God). The classic statement is attributed to King Louis who is said to have said: l'Etat, c'est moi. The people don't figure in that at all, except as subjects. It is completely undemocratic.

Historically, lots of kings have been elected. It's usually on the basis of a very limited franchise such as only the nobility. But that isn't the issue. The issue is the relationship of the king to the people and whether the powers of govenment frlow down from the king, or up from the people. If laws are nothing but what the king says they are, and there is no way for the people to govern themselves or remove the king, then what you have is a dictatorship. That can be in the form of a king elected for life, a king who inherits his title, or a president elected for life, or a president who comes to power undemocratically. How someone comes to power doesn't matter. Nor does it matter if they govern benignly or despotically because they get to decide which one it will be, not the people. It's their relationship to the seat of sovereignty and the mechanism of government that matters. A Stalin is no less a monarch than a King James I, the title is irrelevant. But a Queen Beatrix or Elizabeth is no Tsar Nicholas II. Their "rule" is a fiction. The parliament and government that really rules and those bodies are elected and derive their power from the consent of the governed.

Therefore, since you live in a country with a functioning parliamentary democracy, you in effect live in a republic. Your queen isn't much more than a face on a stamp. I doubt that there are many Australians willing to give up the popular franchise and let the Queen rule as an autocrat, so I doubt there are many true monarchists. Actually, I doubt even the Queen herself is really a monarchist. She seems to believe pretty strongly in government by elected parliament.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
So, let's say there's a national crisis that occurs part way into the second term of a President's term (like another World War, for example). Do you really think it reasonable to force that President out of office while the country is in the middle of a crisis? I don't.

There are plenty of other reasons that the Presidency might switch. For example, a President can die at a particularly inauspicious time, such as in the middle of a World War. That example is not arbitrary; it actually happened, and yet life went on.

Any nation has to be prepared for eventualities like that. Given preparedness, I see no reason to not change Presidencies, even mid-crisis, if the need arises. Is it optimal? Probably not, but neither is it any kind of insurmountable thing.

Likewise, if a President's policies are giving us stability and prosperity then why force a change?

Why does changing Presidents mean changing policy? It certainly doesn't have to; a President can carry on a previous President's policies. It's not unknown, in fact, for previous Presidents to act as mentors to existing ones.

For what it's worth SCOTUS has more power than either branch because SCOTUS can nullify any law or bill passed by elected officials.

They can, but only when called to act. That is the check against their power; they have absolutely no ability to do anything whatsoever on their own; they can only act when summoned.

Furthermore, even a SCOTUS decision can be reversed. It takes a Constitutional amendment to do so (or the Court can reverse itself, but this doesn't happen often), but it can be done. The entire reason that the system works is that no branch really has any more power than any other. Sometimes the checks and balances aren't terribly intuitive, but they are there.

If we take away the lame duck status of a second term President then perhaps we might have more cooperation.

A second-term President is not by any means a lame duck, at least not until after the election of his successor, a term of less than three months out of four years.

Cooperation between the branches is, for the most part, something to be avoided, not desired. The system works because there is so much disagreement most of the time; only things which are agreeable to wildly-differing parties have any hope of passing or, if they do manage to pass, of staying valid. It's not the most efficient way of getting things done, but the inefficiency of government is one of the greatest safeguards against abuse that there is. It's efficient enough to get the job done, and for safety's sake must never be made more efficient than it absolutely has to be.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
So, let's say there's a national crisis that occurs part way into the second term of a President's term (like another World War, for example). Do you really think it reasonable to force that President out of office while the country is in the middle of a crisis? I don't.

As said above, the president can die at any time: assassination, heart attack, car accident... eaten by a bear... whatever.

The nation appropriately is setup so that we don't rely on ANY individual enough that their loss would jepardize the nation.

It's because of this that the 2000 elections didn't result in chaios. In some nations, an election like that would result in tanks in the street, uprisings, etc. Why didn't that happen? Because we aren't so reliant on the office that we feel it's worth that.

This is more protection we have. We can shed our loss, and move on.

Kennedy was shot... did the country disappear? Nope. VP sworn in, carried on. Nation was upset over the loss of a leader, but it didn't really hiccup. Smooth. And after that period, there was another election, and the nation resumed as usual.

THAT, is ensuring democracy. Nobody is powerful/important enough that they are irreplacable. We have a government that is fault tolerant.

That same strategy was used for the Internet. No central hub. In theory any router could fail, but the others would pickup... end users wouldn't notice a difference. That's why the Military was interested in the technology... fault tolerant.

Our nation was really ahead of it's time: We have a fault tolerant government... Now if only we could get multi-tasking to work a little better.

Likewise, if a President's policies are giving us stability and prosperity then why force a change?

All presidents lean. They are human (believe it or not). Just like no media outlet is without bias (there's no such thing as 'fair and balanced', despite the false advertising).

Our nation thrives because we do swerve, but always stay within our lane. Partially because our nation stears in the right direction... but because our guardrails prevent anyone from getting to far off track.

Just for a real obvious example (though pretty far out): A president wants to exterminate group X (genocide). Group X represents 1% of our population (you can figure out how many people that is). Benefit of freeing up that property, etc. makes other 99% very happy. Solves some problems. Presidents popularity is very high obviously... he continues.

Can't happen? Did for Hitler. Hitler removed a minority, and convinced everyone that it was benefitting them. As a result Germany backed him as their hero for quite some time.

Hitler kept the majority feeling he was working for them, and keeping their nation in the front (reviving them from the 'brutal punishment inflicted from WWI'.. as they said).

Yes, Hitler was scum of the earth... but a president within the bounds of the law can do quite a bit.

Bush is good friends with the boys over at Enron... look how many lives they screwed up in a short period. Now imagine if Bush has the ability to give his buddies that power for a 40 year period... how many lives could be screwed up?

Clinton of course favored his buddies as well... majority of the US liked him... but he screwed quite a few over.

Our system says that in 8 years, our nation is forced to re-evaluate all this. Those benefitting from Clinton's coat tails got an end of their ride, and put back in their place. Those who were on the other end of his policies get a break.


And obviously in the process a ton surfaces.

Our nation once again, balances itself.

For what it's worth SCOTUS has more power than either branch because SCOTUS can nullify any law or bill passed by elected officials. I say if the Justices can have life terms then so be it that the rest of our officials have the same opportunity.

If we take away the lame duck status of a second term President then perhaps we might have more cooperation.

The Justices are in a different position. A very different one.

There job implies lots of conflict. Not leadership. But settling conflict in our nation. As a result, there will always be a minimum of 50% in disagreement.

If they were up for re-election, they would always be voted out, and new replacements would always reverse decisions. We would have 0 progress.

The majority of Americans at the time opposed giving women the right to vote, or African Americans. If the Supreme court was re-electable, what would have happened? 4 years, and back to the slave camps/kitchens.

On the presidents side, he isn't supposed to be in those decisions. He's supposed to lead our nation. Doing 'the will of the people'.

We let the president install justices (through several steps), because he's supposed to ensure the process runs smoothly.

If you let them all have a job for life... your really looking at something more like a monarchy, with tons of corruption.

2 branches of the government, for life... congress would be helpless. At least congress now knows if they are fussy, wait a few years, and try again.

So essentially... you would be getting rid of congress. Leaving only the president, and the Supreme court... which would always agree with him.

If his party gets the majority of congress, and votes to eliminate congress, president signs off, and supreme court obviously agrees... that's the end of that... now to more constitutional revising.


You give one guy office for life, and you remove all these barriers protecting our nation. All the president needs then is the bulk of congress/senate on his side. And that's far from impossible.

This is essentially how Saddams party ran the government. They dominated, and ran a 'republic', though it ran as a dictatorship, because they owned it all. They lacked the restrictions we have.


What the US did was the smartest thing. We ensured Democracy would have a hard time corrupting itself. Quite a good thing.

Removing term limits essentially opens a pandora's box. Anything could happen after that.

Note: IIRC congress, and the supreme court could move to extend a presidents term if there's a circumstance that prevents an election (such as a war, or similar situation). THough an election must be held as soon as possible, and only under extreme circumstances could it be held up. It's never been necessary though, because of the above redundancy in our nation's fabric.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I pointed out before that a constitutional monarchy as it exists in places like the UK, or the Netherlands, or Australia is really a bifrucated system. They have a government that behaves like a republic for all the important business of governing the people, and a monarchy for the symbolic stuff. That isn't really a monarchy in the theoretical sense. Monique is right. In a true monarchy power derives from the King (usually channeling God). The classic statement is attributed to King Louis who is said to have said: l'Etat, c'est moi. The people don't figure in that at all, except as subjects. It is completely undemocratic.

Historically, lots of kings have been elected. It's usually on the basis of a very limited franchise such as only the nobility. But that isn't the issue. The issue is the relationship of the king to the people and whether the powers of govenment frlow down from the king, or up from the people. If laws are nothing but what the king says they are, and there is no way for the people to govern themselves or remove the king, then what you have is a dictatorship. That can be in the form of a king elected for life, a king who inherits his title, or a president elected for life, or a president who comes to power undemocratically. How someone comes to power doesn't matter. Nor does it matter if they govern benignly or despotically because they get to decide which one it will be, not the people. It's their relationship to the seat of sovereignty and the mechanism of government that matters. A Stalin is no less a monarch than a King James I, the title is irrelevant. But a Queen Beatrix or Elizabeth is no Tsar Nicholas II. Their "rule" is a fiction. The parliament and government that really rules and those bodies are elected and derive their power from the consent of the governed.

Therefore, since you live in a country with a functioning parliamentary democracy, you in effect live in a republic. Your queen isn't much more than a face on a stamp. I doubt that there are many Australians willing to give up the popular franchise and let the Queen rule as an autocrat, so I doubt there are many true monarchists. Actually, I doubt even the Queen herself is really a monarchist. She seems to believe pretty strongly in government by elected parliament.

I understand where you are coming from, but disagree entirely. Monarchy does not require absolute rule, at least in the English definition of the word. We do as you know distinguish between 'constitutional monarchy', and 'absolute monarchy'. The meanings of these phrases are well understood, so thus a monarchy doesn't have to rule absolutely. After all, definitions of words cannot be arbitrary, they must be determined by what is generally understood. Thus definitions change over time. Even as a political definition a monarchy is only defined as a government headed by a king.

Absolute power is impossible. Historically, a king would be simply 'chief amongst the barons'. Thus the King would rule with the support of the nobility. The nobility would support the king because of the security guarenteed to them and possible wealth. They, especially the greater nobles, were not necessarily forced to pledge allegience to the king.

Even in the so called absolute monarchies before the French revolution, such absolute power although almost real, was not real. The kingdom being bankrupt, survived only by the support of the nobles.

[BlackGriffen]

I have an interesting idea to effectively term limit officeholders without freeing them from politics. Basically, the idea is that the decision about whether or not they can run again is postponed until the end of their term. How to do that fairly? Probability.

Here's my idea for such a system:

Probability of being permitted to run again in House of Reps:
- First incumbent run: 100%
- Second and following runs: 2/3

Senate:
- First and all following runs: 2/3 (accounts for longer term of 6 years)

President:
- First incumbent run: 100%
- Second and following runs: 1/4

The actual system for generating the probability doesn't really matter. Whether it's done lottery style, or by dice/coin. As long as it's properly monitored and open to keep it fair.

The whole idea of this is that they cannot run for the exact same office. A house critter can run on a different seat or cool his heels for a year and run again. A senate critter can do the same (ie change states, run for the other senate seat when it comes up, or wait to run for his old seat when it comes up).

Now, the exact probabilities and when they come up are negotiable, of course, but this should weed incumbents out in a decent fashion. It also, as proposed, probably won't be too different from what we have now. Here's the breakdown of what percent of incumbents from a given year will be allowed to run (assuming the incumbent wins all the time):

Code:
Term:	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th
House:	1/1	1/1	2/3	4/9	8/27	16/81
%:	100%	100%	66.7%	44.4%	29.6%	19.8%

Senate:	1/1	2/3	4/9	8/27	16/81	32/243
%t:	100%	66.7%	44.4%	29.6%	19.8%	13.2%

Pres:	1/1	1/1	1/4	1/16	1/64	1/256
%:	100%	100%	25%	6.25%	1.56%	0.391%

The whole point being that the president is strongly discouraged from running again, but he still has a shot. Realistically, a President won't serve more than four terms, but he always has that 1/4 shot at another term to keep in the back of his mind. House and Senate folks get better odds, so they're less likely to decide not to run again at the beginning of a term.

Also, something to consider: the moment a politician decides not to run again, he's freed from politics. That is why the congress-folk are always encouraged to run again with better than even odds (or at least encouraged to postpone the decision) and presidents are discourage from bothering.

The only trick remaining is ensuring that things stay fair. A clear glass or plastic die with etched surfaces should suffice. Fortunately, even if the incumbent "wins the coin toss," he still has an election to face, so his reelection isn't a done deal.

BlackGriffen

Edit: fixing width.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I have an interesting idea to effectively term limit officeholders without freeing them from politics. Basically, the idea is that the decision about whether or not they can run again is postponed until the end of their term. How to do that fairly? Probability.

Determining whether or not someone can run for re-election by random chance? Am I hearing you right on this?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Determining whether or not someone can run for re-election by random chance? Am I hearing you right on this?

Yep. Do you have a better way to effectively limit terms whilst at the same time keeping the politicians tied to politics?

BG

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Yep. Do you have a better way to effectively limit terms whilst at the same time keeping the politicians tied to politics?

BG

How about elect someone else to take their seats?

You know, that voting thing.