Monarchy Idea?

[JimR-OCDS]

"Executive orders are a way to handle an immediate crisis developing so rapidly that taking time to obtain legislative or judicial approval is difficult. It was once used when there was no other way of properly governing. It was a first defense or last resort. Our founders limited this because:

“Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, and also by the abuse of power.”

– James Madison

We haven't had an immediate crisis for which the current and last two presidents warranted the
use of the EO privilege.

Congress needs to put legislation into law limiting president's from issuing an EO except
in a crisis.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

Executive orders are Constitutional. They've always been part of our government.

Most will just let their freedoms be gradually eroded while they concentrate on who's going to win American Idol this season

So the republicans hoped. But it didn't work out that way, did it? Trump lost. By a margin he described as a "landslide."

 

[The Barbarian]

"Executive orders are a way to handle an immediate crisis developing so rapidly that taking time to obtain legislative or judicial approval is difficult. It was once used when there was no other way of properly governing. It was a first defense or last resort. Our founders limited this because:

“Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, and also by the abuse of power.”

– James Madison

We haven't had an immediate crisis for which the current and last two presidents warranted the
use of the EO privilege.

Congress needs to put legislation into law limiting president's from issuing an EO except
in a crisis.

Reversing such orders is a good start.

 

[Albion]

Executive orders are Constitutional. They've always been part of our government.

That's not the point. Would you think, for example, that the president has the authority under the Constitution to have all members of some minority religion killed? By issuing an Executive Order, that is.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's not the point. Would you think, for example, that the president has the authority under the Constitution to have all members of some minority religion killed? By issuing an Executive Order, that is.

It would be a problem for a president without any moral or ethical restraint, in the absence of an independent judiciary and a free press. That was why the last guy failed in spite of his claims...

Trump Claims Article 2 Gives Him ‘The Right To Do Whatever I Want As President’
Trump: Article II Gives Me ‘Right To Do Whatever I Want’ As POTUS

Unfortunately for him, there is a free press and an independant judiciary. So he failed.

 

[com7fy8]

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

I am not qualified because I do not have reliable access to what is really true about each candidate . . . in my opinion. I at this time do not wish to get into why anyone else is not qualified

 

[miamited]

I am not qualified because I do not have reliable access to what is really true about each candidate . . . in my opinion. I at this time do not wish to get into why anyone else is not qualified

Hi com7fy8,

So, in your thinking, you are an unqualified voter. Since your explanation seems to revolve around whether or not anyone really knows what is 'true about each candidate'. Did you vote in the last election? If so, you should probably turn yourself into the authorities as an unqualified voter. I mean, as a Christian, you should really do what is right,... right?

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi again @com7fy8

Just the general population who will have to live under a governmental regime shouldn't, in your eyes, be qualified to vote for the person who heads that governmental regime over them. Only those who have studied the candidates fully and are fully knowledgeable as to who they are and what they believe and the issues that they will have to address should be allowed to vote for the ruler over them.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Albion]

It would be a problem for a president without any moral or ethical restraint, in the absence of an independent judiciary and a free press.

It would be a problem in any case, being illegal.

 

[com7fy8]

Just the general population who will have to live under a governmental regime shouldn't, in your eyes, be qualified to vote for the person who heads that governmental regime over them. Only those who have studied the candidates fully and are fully knowledgeable as to who they are and what they believe and the issues that they will have to address should be allowed to vote for the ruler over them.

Actually, I am more concerned with if a party is capable of offering their most qualified candidate.

And if no really competent person is offered by any party, it might not make any or much difference . . . even if all the voters were qualified. I have, by the way, heard one person say the last election needed to be for the "lesser of two evils".

Yes, I am fine with everyone being able to vote; but what can this do if parties keep putting forth ones not qualified, to run against each other . . . like how children in broken homes are expected to choose between two wrong parents?

 

[The Barbarian]

It would be a problem in any case, being illegal.

You've been misinformed...
List of United States federal executive orders - Wikipedia

 

[The Barbarian]

Just the general population who will have to live under a governmental regime shouldn't, in your eyes, be qualified to vote for the person who heads that governmental regime over them. Only those who have studied the candidates fully and are fully knowledgeable as to who they are and what they believe and the issues that they will have to address should be allowed to vote for the ruler over them.

I don't think republicans would go for that. And rightly so. If only the well-educated get to vote, we would have an oligarchy, not a democracy.

It's interesting that he parties seem to have switch voters. At one time, a college education and/or professional career were indicators of a republican voter, and a high school or less education and blue-collar job were indicators of a democrat voter.

 

[Albion]

Yes, I am fine with everyone being able to vote; but what can this do if parties keep putting forth ones not qualified, to run against each other . . . like how children in broken homes are expected to choose between two wrong parents?

That's the way it is now. And as it probably will continue to be.

So what's the reason? It's not because of vote fraud or even political party bosses. It's because the parties are now choosing their nominees through presidential primaries, which makes the "crowd favorite" of the moment be the candidate best positioned to go off to the party's nominating convention with a majority of delegates already committed to him, regardless of what the delegates think.

This came about because of popular pressure for the parties to be more "democratic" even though they are private organizations, and then state legislators who control election laws incorporated that popular idea into the election laws.

When you think about it, there hasn't been a nominee of either party for quite a few years whom we'd easily recognize as the best qualified that either party had to offer.

 

[miamited]

Hi @com7fy8

Well, honestly to me, now it sounds like you're just dancing around your own issue. This conversation between you and I started out with your statement:

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.

Now you've completely changed your position from 'voters are not qualified to vote' to 'Actually, I am more concerned with if a party is capable of offering their most qualified candidate'.

Then you completely back track on your initial statement:

Yes, I am fine with everyone being able to vote;...

So, what's your problem with the United States elections system? It sounds to me like you're just crying about sour grapes and really don't have any solid answers or position about there being any problem with the way the United States election process works...except that you feel, in your great and wise wisdom, that the parties aren't putting forth their best candidates.

Question: who would have been a better Democratic candidate that was willing to run for the 2020 presidential election and was not a part of the winnowing process of the primaries?

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

That's the way it is now. And as it probably will continue to be.

So what's the reason? It's not because of vote fraud or even political party bosses. It's because the parties are now choosing their nominees through presidential primaries, which makes the "crowd favorite" of the moment be the candidate best positioned to go off to the party's nominating convention with a majority of delegates already committed to him, regardless of what the delegates think.

This came about because of popular pressure for the parties to be more "democratic" even though they are private organizations, and then state legislators who control election laws incorporated that popular idea into the election laws.

When you think about it, there hasn't been a nominee of either party for quite a few years whom we'd easily recognize as the best qualified that either party had to offer.

Hi @Albion

I must say that following the arguments that you and @com7fy8 are making is like following the bouncing ball on Red Bull. Completely erratic and quite non-sensical. You both think that somehow the best 'qualified' person on a particular party isn't getting the chance to stand in the final election process. So, I'll ask you the same question. Although for you, I'll ask regarding both parties: Who, in both the Democratic and Republican parties would have been the better qualified candidate to run for president in the 2020 election, that wasn't included (for the Democratic party) in the winnowing process of the primaries?

Now, I know that you've made the statement that during the primaries the '"crowd favorite" of the moment be the candidate best positioned to go off to the party's nominating convention with a majority of delegates already committed to him, regardless of what the delegates think'. So, you believe that it should all just be a free for all and that even during the primaries, state delegations shouldn't stick with the primary victor. In that case, what's the sense in having primaries and what is your 'fix' for getting to the final presidential election without having 10-15 candidates on the ballot to water down voting choice?

God bless,
Ted

 

[com7fy8]

So, what's your problem with the United States elections system?

Well, thank you for taking the time

I mean both, not one or the other. A party needs to be capable of offering a good candidate, and to me it seems various parties have not done this. I also mean we voters need to be able to tell the difference.

And I have admitted I do not seem to have the ability to know who is really who. I tend to see what I find to be lacking.

But this does not mean there is something wrong with democracy, only that we humans have a way of not using it very well . . . humans as parties, or as . . . and as . . . individuals. Being human is a problem

In the Bible, it seems to me, there have been cases when it worked out very well to have a king who could dictate . . . if he was with God. And we see how things worked with Joseph > Genesis 37-50. But this was because the king or Joseph was with God and God was favoring the people.

But, also, I see how the early church could work with a combination of one in authority over the others, but also using consensus > Acts 15 > but either way in submission to the Holy Spirit, so either way worked.

And when Peter wanted to appoint our first deacons he delegated the choosing part to the disciples > Acts 6:3. He trusted them to choose; he knew they could tell the difference about who was for real and who wasn't.

The consensus example is how the church met to handle an issue (Acts 15); at first there was dispute; then God used His approved leaders to have authority to bring consensus which morphed into everyone being in agreement.

And I have seen the consensus approach work in a local church meeting. A woman made a proposal, and ones more expert than she helped her see how it was not practical; and she said she had proposed it for evaluation and she withdrew it.

So, this is background to help you see what I mean by things I have said. But yes I can stink about things, when I need to have hope, better, since God is able.

 

[The Barbarian]

I notice that most everyone in the past who has claimed to rule in the name of God, has done very poorly. And I notice autocracies seem to make horrendous errors in governance a lot more frequently than democracies.

So there is that. I'd love to live in a theocracy. I can't wait for it. But God will give us that when He chooses. Meantime, I'm really, leery of anyone who says they they will do it for Him right now.

 

[miamited]

Hi @com7fy8

I mean both, not one or the other.

Then please explain this statement that you made:

Yes, I am fine with everyone being able to vote;...

As I've said, your argument just seems to dance from one position to another without any real meat to either position.

A party needs to be capable of offering a good candidate, and to me it seems various parties have not done this.

Hopefully you will understand that when you say 'to me' it becomes an opinion and,...well,...you know what opinions are like. I'm still waiting for you to answer my question as to 'who' you believe would have been more qualified, that wanted to run, and was not a part of the winnowing process of the primaries. Even if they were a part of the primaries, what makes you believe that you're better at picking a 'qualified' candidate over the majority vote system? Who???? Just a name. That's all I'm asking for here.

And I have admitted I do not seem to have the ability to know who is really who.

So again, did you vote in the last election?

In the Bible, it seems to me, there have been cases when it worked out very well to have a king who could dictate . . .

Yes, and in the Scriptures there are plenty of cases where it didn't work out well.

So, this is background to help you see what I mean by things I have said. But yes I can stink about things, when I need to have hope, better, since God is able.

Personally, I'd say that you're living in a dream world that you would even think to imagine that the election processes of a nation, or any system of picking a ruler, is going to follow biblical precepts and construction.

Let's be clear about what happened in the Scriptures. God Himself was ruler over Israel when they came out of Egypt, but the people soon tired of that idea and cried out for God to step down and set them a man as ruler over them. God fully warned them of what such a ruler would do to them, but acquiesced and gave them what they wanted. Then the various and sundry kings to follow treated the people exactly like God had warned them and yes, they went through more bad kings than good. So, I'd be careful about espousing this idea that rulers over men should be chosen by Scriptural example. It really didn't work out very well for Israel and, I believe, hasn't always worked out well for the body of believers in Jesus. After all, we do have all the Catholic organization's hierarchy of leaders that have bounced around between good and bad leaders. Just as one example of how badly some of the early 'Christian' leaders were chosen. Yes Paul, chose what seems to have been a good batch of leaders, but Paul isn't here with us any longer.

Secondly, the world at large, has never even been expected to follow godly principles. In the old covenant days, it was only and specifically the people of Israel that God worked with. While there were obviously dozens of other nations upon the earth. None of them were inclined to follow God's instructions for choosing their leaders.

So again, I would just say that your complaint seems to be rather pie in the sky wishful thinking and not at all based on the reality of what the Scriptures tells us about the world at large.

I can't help but ask, out of curiosity, do you believe that Donald Trump is God's man for America? Feel free to ignore that if you like, but I will remain curious since you aren't able to name the person that you feel would have been more qualified than our present leader.

God bless,
Ted

 

[com7fy8]

Even if they were a part of the primaries, what makes you believe that you're better at picking a 'qualified' candidate over the majority vote system? Who???? Just a name. That's all I'm asking for here.

None that I am sure of. Except there are people I know personally, who could do well, I would say . . . yes, in my opinion. But they would need cooperation, and wishing for that would be like you say wishing for pie in the sky, or something like this

So again, did you vote in the last election?

Yes. I gave my vote to ones I trust, meaning I voted for their preferred candidate, and one was shocked that I voted that way. No, thank you - - I do not feel like naming the person.

I can't help but ask, out of curiosity, do you believe that Donald Trump is God's man for America? Feel free to ignore that if you like, but I will remain curious since you aren't able to name the person that you feel would have been more qualified than our present leader.

No, I do not find him to be approved by God, but I do understand God is able to use ones in authority for His good, somehow, going by what I have read in Romans chapter 13.

I don't really expect anything from anyone, but I pray for however God blesses each one. And I have benefited from each president, somehow.

So, about what

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?

I see how each system can have ways of keeping the lid on things. No one person has a way of taking over everything. And in the United States no one party can take over everything.

But we can have good rulership in our personal lives with approved leaders >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

There are people now, I would say, who rule by example . . . meaning they lead by taking the lead in what we all need to do They evaluate themselves first, answering to God . . . not just pointing at how competition is wrong. But I suppose we might say . . . yes, my opinion . . . when ones get more into controlling . . . in any way of rulership . . . and they get away from taking the lead . . . it doesn't work so well . . . in democracy or monarchy or socialism. But I think I personally know people who could do any of them right; but these are family people with enough to handle, already!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I think the parties offer good candidates in the primaries, but the voters don't elect
them. Instead they vote for the Trump's and Biden's of the parties and the better
candidates go by the wayside.