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 individuals
2.) The right to be consulted about new legislation before it is enacted
3.) The right to have his/her opinions on issues heard by legislators
4.) The right to dissolve Congress and hold new elections

All 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

Quote :

"I fail to see how giving an unelected position the ability to dissolve an elected legislature gives "greater power to the constitution.""

I fail to see how giving a do-nothing legislature a fixed amount of time to either piddle away their time doing nothing gives us a greater chance of seeing the constitution upheld. They should be held with greater accountability, as servants of the people. Without power amongst the people to decide when a congress has misused the public trust, who will be able to tell them to take a hike? Why give them the duration of the term if they can't do their job? If they are doing their job, why not be sure to keep them in the position of serving until they no longer prove useful? The monarch in this case, enlightened as he hopefully would be, would act in the best interest of the constitution and the populace and dissolve a do-nothing legislature.

Quote :

"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."

Part of the solution in my opinion is a multi-party system in the elected chamber, hopefully reducing the inherent polarity of the 2 party system. I'm not sure about whether there should be one elected or both elected chambers, but Sweden has the later (one indirectly elected by local govts., one directly elected nationally), all under a monarch, and that seems to work out.

If I was going to go even further in reforming, I would say that this would work best in smaller units, union be damned.

"The State functions more easily if it can be personified. An elected President who has stepped out of politics, like the French President, is no substitute for a King who has stepped in by right of inheritance. Still less is an active politician, like the President of the United States, a substitute. We can damn the Government and cheer the King."
-- W Ivor Jennings

My biggest hope is that, by eliminating barriers to the constitution and streamlining governance, we can move away from the Weberian "iron cage" of bureaucracy.

[Edited on November 1, 2006 at 10:26 PM. Reason : .]

11/1/2006 10:11:57 PM

Quote :

"4.) The right to dissolve Congress and hold new elections All of these as a safeguard against abuses of power."

Does not compute...

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

Quote :

"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."

The increasing power of the presidency over the course of the 20th century can be attributed to the growth of the bureacracy in general. I agree with pretty much everything you said about presidential power and the senate. I want to see the top official's job reduced to what it once was. You can add "negotiate treaties" to the list of 4 things I provided earlier, the monarch/president should be top diplomat, acting in non-partisan interest of all parties involved in the situation.

11/2/2006 9:00:02 AM

Quote :

"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."

As opposed to election by the states?

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.

Quote :

"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)?"

You do realize that all parts of our government are limited by each other, right. This is like ELP all over again. Checks and balances.

11/2/2006 11:20:15 AM

Quote :

"As opposed to election by the states?"

Right, senators were appointed by state assemblies instead of being elected by state majorities.

The idea is that representatives act differently depending on how they get into office. A representative in the House of Reps. will pander to the citizens, while a senator will pander to state legislators.

Representatives of the lower house will refuse to pass bills pandering to state legislators, and senators from the upper house will refuse to pass bills pandering to voters, therefore only bills and laws that are in the nation's best interest will pass.

Judging by the legislative record of the United States prior to 1913 this check and balance worked fairly well. Special interest or "fad" bills were still passed once and awhile, but these periods were usually short lived. Compare that to today where bills coming out of the Senate and House are ridiculously similar and usually pass both houses with mere compromise as both houses are driven by the same incentives: getting pork barrel projects for their constituents.

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:

Quote :

"The monarch in this case, enlightened as he hopefully would be, would act in the best interest of the constitution and the populace and dissolve a do-nothing legislature."

Maybe when you picked the first monarch he would be enlightened (although that seems unlikely since the entire population of the United States picks leaders as enlightened as a king would have to be once in a blue moon). But then his kid won't be, for all kinds of reasons. So now you have an unelected, unenlightened guy at the helm. And your suggestion that we just shoot him is a bit frivolous.

Quote :

"I'm not sure about whether there should be one elected or both elected chambers, but Sweden has the later (one indirectly elected by local govts., one directly elected nationally), all under a monarch, and that seems to work out."

Lots of countries in Europe have Monarchs with certain nominal powers that they never, ever, ever, ever use, because if they did, the monarchy would immediately be dismantled by an angry populace. The Queen of England's power to prevent legislation from going into effect by refusing to sign it works out fine because it might as well not exist because neither she nor her retard frog-squirrel of a son will ever use it. So why bother?

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

Quote :

"enlightened as he hopefully would be"

Well, what would be a better way to phrase that? I'm trying to avoid saying that a monarch would be absolutely enlightened to head a system, that's folly to say in any system. history has show, even recent history, that monarchist societies can survive for a long time with such "enlightened" individuals. Sweden's has lasted 1,000 years.

This is purely theoretical, btw. The process of selecting a monarch would be nearly impossible, though I'm sure you could find someone from the House of Washington or Jefferson.

[Edited on November 2, 2006 at 5:29 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2006 5:28:09 PM

Quote :

"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?"

In Italy (I know, not exactly a good example in politics), Parliament elect a head of state that is not in charge of government, but is in command of the troops and has the ceremonial roles. The position is called a President and is for a 7-year term and the person cannot be renewed. It is meant to be the symbol of national unity. This is an example of a type of "elected king".

The true power in Italy lies in the Prime Minister position.

Listed powers in the Italian constitution for the President:

Quote :

"The Constitution of Italy lays out the duties and powers of the President of the Republic, which in detail are: in relation to external representation: Accrediting and receiving diplomatic functionaries; Ratifying international treaties, upon authorization of Parliament; Making official visits abroad, accompanied by a member of the government; Declaring a state of war, deliberated by Parliament; in relation to the exercise of parliamentary functions: Nominating up to five senators-for-life: Sending messages to the Chambers, calling them to extraordinary session, dissolving them other than in the last six months of his mandate (the white semester), provided they do not coincide in whole or in part with the last six months of the legislature; Calling elections and fixing the date for the first meeting of the new Chambers; in relation to legislative functions: Authorizing the presentation in Parliament of proposed laws on the part of the government; Promulgating the laws approved in Parliament; Remanding to the Chambers, with an explanation, and asking for reconsideration (however, the president is required to promulgate the law if it is reapproved without modification); in relation to popular sovereignty: Calling referenda, and, in case they are approved by the voters, declaring the abrogation of the laws thereto subjected; in relation to the executive function and of political guideline; Naming, after due consultation, the prime minister of Italy, and on proposal of the latter, the ministers; Accepting the oath of the government, and its resignation if it resigns; Emanating laws by decree (proposed by the government without the approval of Parliament; they remain valid only for a limited time) and the administrative acts and regulations of the government; Naming certain high state functionaries; Presiding over the Consiglio Supremo della Difesa ("Supreme Defense Council"), and commanding the armed forces; Decreeing the dissolution of regional councils and the removals of presidents of regions; in relation to the exercise of jurisdiction: Presiding over the Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura ("Superior Judicial Council"); Naming one third of the Corte Costituzionale ("Constitutional Court"); Granting pardons and commutations. "

[Edited on November 2, 2006 at 5:48 PM. Reason : /]

11/2/2006 5:42:19 PM

Quote :

"Case in point, think of how more screwed up Britain would be if the object of their patriotism was toward Tony Blair."

God save our gracious Blair.. long live our noble Blair...

You know that the Queen of England has the authority to veto any laws passed by Parliament or any of the legislatures of the UK or Commonwealth states? And the veto cannot be overridden. If I were king, I would exercise that power a LOT more frequently.

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

Quote :

"In Italy (I know, not exactly a good example in politics), Parliament elect a head of state that is not in charge of government, but is in command of the troops and has the ceremonial roles. The position is called a President and is for a 7-year term and the person cannot be renewed. It is meant to be the symbol of national unity. This is an example of a type of "elected king"."

I would consider this an indirectly elected position since the head of state is elected by elected officials. Just a thought.

11/3/2006 12:29:13 AM