Monarchy Idea?

[dóxatotheó]

A monarch who has authority from heritage not election, but had laws he had to follow. He still has a possibility to lose his authority, but if you are born in the family you become the ruler after the older ruler passes on. These laws he has to follow is signed by a Court ruling which is how he loses his office if he breaks those laws he has to follow he loses his authority. But the only thing that this differs from Britian is that the ruler has more authority than the ruling the Queens have he still can veto etc. Also, the ruler has control over all means of production This view is a mix between constitutional monarchy and socialism. Is this view bad or good thoughts?

 

[com7fy8]

We see, now, I would say, in the United States, how democracy can have a major problem . . . if the voters are not qualified to vote for what is good and work with each other. Voters can be good; one person with all control can be good. Voters can be selfish and divided; one person can be wrong.

Actually, democracy can be a multi-million group of dictators . . . each one being one's own dictator! . . . and not qualified to be. I would say that in the United States there are people who are good and qualified . . . for the country and for themselves, but some number are not good for even their own selves, never mind the country. And this can effect who gets into office.

Then there is the issue of your monarch being accountable to laws. How well this works will depend on how much power there is to enforce those laws. It can work well, I would say.

But in the United States, it seems there is enough corruption so there is inefficient enforcement of laws for politicians.

 

[atpollard]

thoughts?

[Matthew 20]
24 And hearing [this,] the ten became indignant with the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and [their] great men exercise authority over them. 26 "It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

[Mark 10]
41 Hearing [this,] the ten began to feel indignant with James and John. 42 Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, "You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. 43 "But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; 44 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. 45 "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Thought: The FORM OF GOVERNMENT cannot cure the disease of the heart of mankind. Better a Military Junta whose heart belongs to God than a perfect democracy of men without the blessing of God. Until our LORD reigns, we are just wanderers in a strange land that is not our home ... doing good where HE allows us opportunity.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't think that Americans would stand for it. Give the hyperkinetic efforts of the right to enlarge autocratic powers in the chief executive, we need less of that, not more.

Thought: The FORM OF GOVERNMENT cannot cure the disease of the heart of mankind.

Which was the great understanding of the founders. We can't trust the government to make us good, and the record shows that governments so organized have inevitably led to horror and evil. That's not what government is for. Government is to keep people from abusing each other, to to push them around.

Better a Military Junta whose heart belongs to God than a perfect democracy of men without the blessing of God.

You might as well call for a spotted blue unicorn to lead us. There actually might be one of those.

 

[atpollard]

I don't think that Americans would stand for it. Give the hyperkinetic efforts of the right to enlarge autocratic powers in the chief executive, we need less of that, not more.

How is that a “right vs left” issue?
Obama legislated by executive decree more than Bush and Trump followed the precedent.

Certainly as far back as FDR, we can see a steady rise in the power of the executive branch with each administration irrespective of party … so have all presidents of both parties been pawns of the “right” for the last 100 years?

That seems more the innate nature of bureaucracies to grow and men to crave “more power”.

 

[atpollard]

You might as well call for a spotted blue unicorn to lead us. There actually might be one of those.

Read about the crowning of King David for a Divine Right Military Junta.

The Salem Witch Trials were New England Town Hall Democracy at its worst.

(Apparently “spotted blue unicorns” do exist.)

 

[The Barbarian]

Read about the crowning of King David for a Divine Right Military Junta.

Yeah, he hardly ever abused his power, did he? Adultery, killing a husband to get his wife, etc. And there was that little succession problem when his son couldn't wait for him to die and tried to seize power, leading to a civil war. No thanks. Yes, he eventually repented, but this points out that men are weak and power inevitably corrupts them. The founders had that right.

The Salem Witch Trials were New England Town Hall Democracy at its worst.

Except, no votes. In fact, the boss of the local religious junta actually used undemocratic power to kill a political rival. Would you like to learn about that?

(Apparently “spotted blue unicorns” do exist.)

They are certainly more common than men who can be trusted with regal power.

 

[The Barbarian]

How is that a “right vs left” issue?

It's not. It's just that the right is currently not very popular with the American people. As Trump once admitted, if every citizen got to vote, no republican would ever be president again. When Jim Crow was alive in the Southern states, democrats were doing the same things.

Obama legislated by executive decree more than Bush and Trump followed the precedent.

Well, that's a testable assumption....
The surprising number of executive orders by each U.S. president

Obama issued 277 orders in 8 years.
Trump got almost that many in 4 years. (221)

George W. Bush? 291 in 8 years. Not close to Trump rate, but only slightly more than Obama.

 

[Always in His Presence]

A monarch who has authority from heritage not election, but had laws he had to follow. He still has a possibility to lose his authority, but if you are born in the family you become the ruler after the older ruler passes on. These laws he has to follow is signed by a Court ruling which is how he loses his office if he breaks those laws he has to follow he loses his authority. But the only thing that this differs from Britian is that the ruler has more authority than the ruling the Queens have he still can veto etc. Also, the ruler has control over all means of production This view is a mix between constitutional monarchy and socialism. Is this view bad or good thoughts?

Name a country as diverse and close to the size of the US where it works?

How would you end the Constitution and Amendments that make us a Representative Republic.

What would be the benefits?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

A monarch who has authority from heritage not election, but had laws he had to follow. He still has a possibility to lose his authority, but if you are born in the family you become the ruler after the older ruler passes on. These laws he has to follow is signed by a Court ruling which is how he loses his office if he breaks those laws he has to follow he loses his authority. But the only thing that this differs from Britian is that the ruler has more authority than the ruling the Queens have he still can veto etc. Also, the ruler has control over all means of production This view is a mix between constitutional monarchy and socialism. Is this view bad or good thoughts?

Following the law wasn't always the case for Kings. Even the Magna Carter was
ignored by the King at times and they essentially dictated their own ideas.

It's a good reason for the US to revolt against King George as he made the laws
without consent from the Colonists.

It's a bad idea and I would oppose bringing a monarchy to the United States.

 

[atpollard]

Yeah, he hardly ever abused his power, did he? Adultery, killing a husband to get his wife, etc. And there was that little succession problem when his son couldn't wait for him to die and tried to seize power, leading to a civil war. No thanks. Yes, he eventually repented, but this points out that men are weak and power inevitably corrupts them. The founders had that right.



Except, no votes. In fact, the boss of the local religious junta actually used undemocratic power to kill a political rival. Would you like to learn about that?



They are certainly more common than men who can be trusted with regal power.

“Better a Military Junta whose heart belongs to God than a perfect democracy of men without the blessing of God.”

I thought that a reminder of what I actually said seemed to be in order since you are refuting arguments that I never made.

It is GOD that matters, not the form of government. Stalin led a communist democracy, so democracy (and we technically have a Republic) is not a replacement for God’s hand on the heart of the “ruler” (or any people).

 

[atpollard]

How would you end the Constitution and Amendments that make us a Representative Republic.

A Constitutional Convention.

 

[Always in His Presence]

A Constitutional Convention.

Good luck

 

[Albion]

I don't think that Americans would stand for it.

Sure, they would. They are doing so now. The outcry against rule by edict AKA Executive Order, for example, hardly brings a peep of criticism from most voters. And those who do speak out against it or stage protests are risking having the same government accuse them of being "domestic terrorists," raid their residences, or otherwise come down on them.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sure, they would. They are doing so now. The outcry against rule by edict AKA Executive Order, for example, hardly brings a peep of criticism from most voters. And those who do speak out against it or stage protests are risking having the same government accuse them of being "domestic terrorists," raid their residences, or otherwise come down on them.

EO's can be overturned by the SCOTUS as has happened to just about every president at one
time or another.

Not so under a Monarchy as the King can declare a law that is immoral and oppressive, but
nothing can be done to stop it.

 

[Albion]

EO's can be overturned by the SCOTUS as has happened to just about every president at one
time or another.

Very well, but that misses the point of my comment. It was suggested that the people wouldn't stand for a takeover of the government, yet the encroachments upon our traditional liberties continue all the time with little response from the people, and I gave an example. But we could also reflect upon the fact there were two "impeachments" or attempted coups last year with the January 6 hoax underway at present...and what did the people's response amount to?

Not so under a Monarchy as the King can declare a law that is immoral and oppressive, but
nothing can be done to stop it.

As far as relevancy, that scenario is questionable. There is hardly a monarchy left anywhere in the world which has that kind of authority--and can get away with attempting to use it. Not any longer.

 

[miamited]

Hi @com7fy8

...if the voters are not qualified to vote...

Could you provide some more information on 'what' constitutes a citizen as being 'not qualified' to vote?

Are you, perhaps, proposing an 'idiot' test for voters before they can cast a ballot to support the person that they think is their best choice?

God bless,
Ted

 

[The Barbarian]

It is GOD that matters, not the form of government. Stalin led a communist democracy

You realize that a democracy is where everyone gets a vote, and whoever gets the most votes, wins?

Soviet elections only had one person running for each office.

That's not a democracy. I bet you think the People's Republic of China is run by the people of China, too.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sure, they would. They are doing so now. The outcry against rule by edict AKA Executive Order, for example, hardly brings a peep of criticism from most voters.

I'm constantly hearing shrieks of outrage from people who thought that if Trump issued an executive order, that the next president couldn't merely reverse it.

And those who do speak out against it or stage protests are risking having the same government accuse them of being "domestic terrorists,"

Attacking our Capitol, screaming to lynch the Vice President, and attacking police officers in an attempt to overturn the Constitution will cause people to think so, yes.

raid their residences, or otherwise come down on them.

And all the insurgents wanted to to was murder a few of our public officials and overturn the vote of American citizens. For this police are arresting them and courts are even sentencing them to prison.

The meanies.

 

[Albion]

I'm constantly hearing shrieks of outrage from people who thought that if Trump issued an executive order, that the next president couldn't merely reverse it.

They obviously did not think that the current administration would try to rule without regard for the Constitution. They were wrong about that, so I suppose some of them are "shrieking" now. However, that's a minority of people. Most will just let their freedoms be gradually eroded while they concentrate on who's going to win American Idol this season or what the next fashion trend is going to be.