Author Topic: End of the Monarchies  (Read 44664 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: End of the Monarchies
« Reply #30 on: January 06, 2008, 06:35:12 PM »
If the United States is not a democracy, what is it?

The USA was founded as a Citizenship Republic "And to the Republic for which it stands..."

Over the years, beginning with the Lincoln Administration of the 1860's ideas of socialism, democracy and increasingly during the 20th Century, fascism have been thrown in.  In reality, the United States has not been a pure Republic, that is if you happened to be a white male American, since Lincoln.  (Because of slavery, our ethnic cleansing of the American Indians and the absence of Women's rights, we've never been a true republic for all.  These policies fall under fascism).

The blocking of the cessation of the Southern States, a constitutional and declaration right, ended the pure republic and is the first time a President swept the Constitution aside in favor of an agenda. 


Alixz

  • Guest
Re: End of the Monarchies
« Reply #31 on: January 06, 2008, 06:43:16 PM »
FOUNDING FATHERS’ REPUBLIC DEFINITION
More specifically, the founders set up a Republic where the government was limited in its powers.

The government itself didn’t hold sovereignty over the people. Instead, the people held sovereignty. The “power” of government was derived from the people themselves.

Our United States Constitution grants the formation of a limited government by the permission of the people. The people grant only the authority for the government to serve as the protector of natural rights.

The intent of the Constitution is to establish the law through which the people allow the government to operate.

This definition of Republic flies in the face of the democracy under which we suffer today.

“Democracy is more cruel than wars or tyrants.” - Seneca, a Roman from 63 B.C

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: End of the Monarchies
« Reply #32 on: January 06, 2008, 06:50:36 PM »
There wasn't much democracy when USA launched a military coup in Hawaii either. That ended a sovereign nation's monarchy and system of government. I guess that was imperialism.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: End of the Monarchies
« Reply #33 on: January 06, 2008, 06:56:45 PM »
But back to the subject of restoration:


Today, the majority of democratic countries in the world are republics, i.e. officials are elected. Some well-established democratic countries in Europe, however, (the United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the Scandinavian countries) are constitutional monarchies, i.e. a king or queen is head of state while the constitution guarantees nevertheless all basic rights as in any democratic republic and sets clear limits to duties and competences of the monarch. Such a king can be regarded as a stabilizing factor rather than as a danger for a democracy.

And dmitri:  I believe that all of the pre Great War countries tried their hand at Imperialism.  Our Spanish American War also resulted in the US gaining territory which we then ruled without their consent.

I believe the military coup in Hawaii to be one of the worst examples of the US taking over a sovereign nation for the express purpose of controlling its natural resources.  The "big" companies or the military industrial complex came into being with this coup.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: End of the Monarchies
« Reply #34 on: January 06, 2008, 07:00:20 PM »
However, the Treaty of Versailles truly broke all the rules of fair play.  The victors not only drew new lines on the maps, but they created countries - like Kuwait where the British set up an emir in order to control the vast oil reserves.

They threw people of different ethnic backgrounds into newly redesigned "states" and then proceeded to set up control over them.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: End of the Monarchies
« Reply #35 on: January 06, 2008, 07:08:12 PM »
And just one more thing about the differences between a republic and a democracy:


Our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

DEMOCRACY:

A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
REPUBLIC:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: End of the Monarchies
« Reply #36 on: January 06, 2008, 10:53:31 PM »
Thanks Alixz. What a bizarre situation those definitions of democracy and republic are!! They are a bit of a worry aren't they? It's important to remember that Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all long standing constitutional monarchies. They are also long standing democracies. In fact it is no coincidence that most of the long standing democracies are constitutional monarchies.

Let us look at what are classified as unbroken democracies. This means that a largely democratic government has remained continuous throughout warfare since independence. No foreign occupation has ever taken place since independence. It is interesting to note that majority are in fact constitutional monarchies.

1. Switzerland
2. United Kingdom
3. United States
4. Sweden
5. Canada
6. Australia
7. New Zealand

Out of the 7, 5 are constitutional monarchies and 4 have Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State.

Interesting to have a look at constitutional monarchies in the world :   

United Kingdom - same Head of State since 1952 - in 2008 - 56 years
Canada - as above
Australia - as above
New Zealand - as above
Netherlands - 1980
Belgium - 1993 - in 2008 - 15 years
Norway - 1991 - in 2008 - 17 years
Sweden - 1973 - in 2008 - 35 years
Denmark - 1972 - in 2008 - 36 years
Spain - 1975 - in 2008 - 33 years
Luxembourg - 2000 - in 2008 - 8 years
Liechtenstein - 1989 - in 2008 - 19 years
Monaco - 2005 - in 2008 - 3 years
Malaysia - rotates every 5 years
Japan - 1989 - in 2008 - 19 years
many former British colonies in the West Indies and Pacific areas 

Constitutional monarchies usually provides great stability as the constitional monarch remains as Head of State while the Head of Government changes through multi-party elections held either every 3, 4 or 5 years. The governments change as elections occur but the Heads of State only change with death or in some cases abdication of the monarch. Most constitutional monarchies remain popular because the Heads of State keep out of politics and largely prevent abuse of the system of government. The people are the ultimate controllers of their own fate as they can throw out a government if they so choose to do.

Then there are countries that have a President who function as a psuedo elected constitutional monarch. They are either elected by a majority in parliament or by a direct vote of the people. They are :

Austria
Germany
Italy
Greece
Czech Republic
Poland
Finland
Iceland
Portugal
Switzerland
Hungary
Ireland

and so on

In the case of Europe many of these ceremonial republics came into being due to overthrow of constitutional monarchy or monarchy of some form through illegal military coup d'etat, war, communism or revolution which overthrew autocracy. Most have not willingly become republics! Isn't it interesting that most of these countries never had a referendum of the people do ask whether a republic should come into being?

Austria - war and revolution - previously autocracy - later nazism, enforced democracy after ww2
Germany - as above
Italy - war and dictatorship/referendum
Greece - military coup and later referendum
Czech Republic - initially revolution creating republic, then war and nazism, communism, revolution
Poland - war and revolution, nazism, communism, revolution
Finland - constitional monarchy prevented due to war and republic the result
Iceland - republic came into being because of foreign occupation of Denmark during war
Portugal - military coup
Switzerland - overthrowing autocracy
Hungary - revolution and Regent not standing down for legitimate monarch, war, revolution, communism, revolution
Ireland - change from dominion to republic status

Danger to democratic rule usually occurs in Republics where Presidents have had more than ceremonial power  ... sadly these are found in most of Africa, South and Central America and many parts of Asia ....

The United States of America stands alone and has a different sort of government with an executive President and bicameral parliament. This is something quite unique. 

Russia has a unique form of republic as well.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: End of the Monarchies
« Reply #37 on: January 07, 2008, 09:09:46 AM »
What I find interesting is the difference between the parliament of Britain and the Congress of the US, is that a vote of "no confidence" can cause the British Parliament to "fall", but the American Congress is in for the duration of the elected term regardless of how badly they do things.

The Prime Minister is not chosen by popular election as is the American President and again, can be eliminated by a vote of "no confidence".

I believe that more Americans would vote and be interested in our system of government if we could prematurely end the term of our elected officials when they no longer hold the confidence of the people.  Either that or we should have "term limits" and not allow anyone to become entrenched.  I would like to see the President elected for six years (or maybe 5) and not be able to run again.  That would end all of this incessant campaigning and keep our head of state's mind on running the country not being popular enough to be reelected.

I know that it is now considered a "joke" to believe in the Jeffersonian approach to our government.  He believed that government should be as small as possible and intrude as little as possible into the everyday life of the citizens.  I know that he presided over an agrarian society with a very small population as compared to today.  But I also believe that FDR (that old Dutch aristocrat) inflated our government to a size that is self perpetuating and ever growing.  The people no longer allow the government to rule over them, the government allows the people to exist under its growing constraints.

By the way, one of the definitions of Democracy that I encountered while researching was "lynch mob".  Meaning the majority rules and the majority carries out its decisions with no regard to law or consequence or the opinion of the minority or the safety of the minority and its rights. That is the definition of "majority rule".  This is also "mobocracy" or  'mob rule".

In a republic with a constitution that has a system of checks and balances, the decisions are supposed to made by those representatives whom the people have empowered with the right to speak on their behalf with the constraint of laws which safe guard the rights of both the majority and the minority.

One other thing that the constitution ensures is that no one person can declare war.  Only congress has the ability to declare war and our president can not send troops onto foreign soil without the express agreement of congress.  We Americans tend to forget that or not even know that is a part of our constitution and that is why so many will blame our president for "his war".  Yes, our president is "commander in chief" but he alone can not start a war with a foreign country.

I am no expert on constitutional law, but I think that our founding fathers did not intend for our country to take the path that it has taken since 1860. 

Offline grandduchessella

  • Global Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 13041
  • Getting Ready to Move to Europe :D
    • View Profile
    • Facebook page
Re: End of the Monarchies
« Reply #38 on: January 07, 2008, 12:48:32 PM »
Well, some individual states have passed term limits, I believe. That should please you as you stated you are a 10th Amendment person. It was a very hot topic for awhile around 1994-6 when people were especially peeved at the way Congress was running things. (The presidency was term-limited decades ago so while FDR could be elected 4 times, there's now a set number of years--a little over 8, I believe, so that you could have 2 full terms of yoru own if you succeeded to office following the death/resignation/removal of a president.) I think the Supreme Court made some rulings about the constitutionality of term limits, perhaps restricting it to the states to decide, but can't remember exactly.

The president actually CAN send troops onto foreign soil without congressional approval, though he cannot declare war. It's for a specific period of time (60 days, without a formal declaration of war by Congress and further grants an additional 30 days upon a formal request by the President, regardless of whether or not Congress assents to this request) and presents Congress with rather a fait d'acommpli, especially since he has 48 hrs to tell Congress he has done so under the specific circumstances.

The War Powers Act of 1973 attempted to bridge the difficulties in juggling the roles of the President (as Commander-in-Chief) with the rights of Congress.

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to:

(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
50 U.S.C. s. 1541(c)

They also serve who only stand and wait--John Milton
Come visit on Pinterest--http://pinterest.com/lawrbk/

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: End of the Monarchies
« Reply #39 on: January 07, 2008, 02:29:42 PM »
GDE

Thank you for your excellent reply.  I how often your husband has been deployed and how long it must seem until he comes back.  We all keep you and Bob in our thoughts.

God bless,

Alixz

Offline grandduchessella

  • Global Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 13041
  • Getting Ready to Move to Europe :D
    • View Profile
    • Facebook page
Re: End of the Monarchies
« Reply #40 on: January 07, 2008, 06:54:23 PM »
Thanks so much, Alixz. I'm fortunate that Bob doesn't deploy as much as some and I am keenly aware of, and grateful for, it. The Forum has always been a great support when he's been gone and it's much appreciated.  :) :-*

Not to get too far off the topic of monarchies, but since we have rather an Imperial presidency, it might not be too far off track. This administration, from the top down, has a grave distrust and dislike of Congress and their powers, or what many on the right see as their perceived powers. The War Powers Act sticks in the craw of many from the Nixon era and many of them served in very high capacities in both administrations--chiefly Vice President Cheney and former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. From some of the books & articles I've read, this feeling was very deep-seated and there would've been showdowns regardless of 9/11 and, later, Iraq over what powers belong to the Presidency. The attacks and the war gave them ample political coverage though to pass through Congress much on their agenda that otherwise Congress might never have considered giving up. This feeling is especially deep-rooted in Cheney--as witnessed in his ever-continuing battles with Congress over EVERYTHING and his resentment over any sort of Congressional oversight. They want to basically turn back the clock to the pre-Vietnam era when the presidency was much more powerful (ala FDR) and Congress much less so.
They also serve who only stand and wait--John Milton
Come visit on Pinterest--http://pinterest.com/lawrbk/

Offline Ilias_of_John

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: End of the Monarchies
« Reply #41 on: January 07, 2008, 07:45:47 PM »
The whole idea of an Imperial Presidency without unchecked powers is not onlly repulsive but also dangerous.
The last thing that anyone would want is a true autocracy masked by the cloak of republicanism. It appears that that is precisely what has been occuring in the U.S for quite some time leading to the current geopolitical situation we find ourselves in where the Americans have  gone  to war without the approval of ther congress or people, without even mentioning the lies to get there, ala the WMD's.
Anyway the idea of a constituitional monarchy whereby the Sovereign rules on behalf of the people, retaining the services of a Prime Minister who has the support of the legislature is by far the best form of rule. Sure some autocratic Emperors, Kings and dynasts are trully interested in their people yet there are many who either hide in their folds or can succeed to the throne who are only in it for themselves. An excellent example are the North Koreans and their communist dynasty!.(Dear Leader???!!!)
By the way, whats the story with the Bush's, first daddy is President, then George and some are even saying Jed may have a crack at it!
It appears that in America those who have power have money and then they buy more power!
Hmmmm  interesting!
Honour all men.
Love the brotherhood.
Fear God.
Honour the king.
1 Peter 2:17

Offline grandduchessella

  • Global Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 13041
  • Getting Ready to Move to Europe :D
    • View Profile
    • Facebook page
Re: End of the Monarchies
« Reply #42 on: January 07, 2008, 08:28:46 PM »
American's have a history of political dynasties going back to the Adams family (father & son presidents) so the Bush duo is not unusual. However, I think Jeb (not Jed) would have almost no chance at the nomination for while we might not mind political families, there has never been more than 2 members of one family (let alone so close together as a father and 2 sons would be) elected to the highest office. There has been John and John Quincy Adams (father & son), William Henry & Benjamin Harrison (grandfather & grandson) and, almost, William Taft and his son Robert (who was one of the most powerful Senators to never become President) as well as John and brother Robert Kennedy (who was well on his way to the nomination and possible victory when he was killed).

As a side note, whatever one thinks of the reasons for the war, Congress DID in fact approve it--something that many of those now running on both sides are having to answer to voters for. Also, at the time, the vast majority of the American public, sadly, did support going to war. So it's not correct to say that the President went to war without popular or Congressional support. Hindsight being 20/20, the situation is vastly different now with over-whelming majorities against the war yet Congress still stymied in how to extract the country since the President will not.
They also serve who only stand and wait--John Milton
Come visit on Pinterest--http://pinterest.com/lawrbk/

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: End of the Monarchies
« Reply #43 on: January 07, 2008, 09:18:07 PM »
GDE -  I always thought that congress had approved the war and voted funding for it.  That is why there is so much back-peddling by some of the candidates.  I admire Colon Powell for resigning when he found out that we were lied to about the WMD.  i have always believed that he would make a fine president.

So many of our rights have been limited by the Patriot Act and so much of the powers that belong to each branch of the government have been weakened or suborned by other branches that it may be close to impossible to ever get back what we once had.  The Patriot Act was passed in the post 9/11 fear and horror period and (as in Germany of 1932) almost anything would have been acceptable to the people if it took away the constant fear of future attacks.

In the dynasties don't forget the Roosevelts.  Theodore and Franklin were loosely related and Eleanor was Theodore's niece her father being Elliot Roosevelt Theodore's brother.  In fact there have been many more related presidents than one would expect in a country where an ordinary citizen was expected to take up the burden of the presidency and to do his best until the time came for the next citizen to take over.

We have a very limited number of citizens who can actually afford to run for president.  And that, to me, is the most shameful thing of all.


Offline Ilias_of_John

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: End of the Monarchies
« Reply #44 on: January 07, 2008, 09:34:19 PM »
I'm sorry to read the above!
Tell me, if congress wants out of this war, and GWB doesent, how can a resolution be achieved.I know that GW is leaving buts lets say the next President wants to keep your troops there, what can congress do?
And by the way regarding the wmd's etc, geopolitically its all about communist  China and and emerging India and their insatiable hunger for natural resources and oil!
The alliance's peoples were lied to and for the life of me I cant understand why the Bush's, Blair's and Howard's havent been charged with a criminal offence, let alone a war crime! Goes to show how effective our so called  western democracies and their systems of Justice are sometimes manipulated for the select few!
I read somewhere that the French have actually issued a warrant for Cheeny, anyone know anything about that?
Honour all men.
Love the brotherhood.
Fear God.
Honour the king.
1 Peter 2:17