Would you support having an American monarch IF it kept the courts separate from politics?

☝️this silliness again

 

We rebelled against a king once already.

Nope.

 

I see. So are you advocating for repeal of the Voting Rights Act that created modern day gerrymandering? Or are you blissfully unaware of the actual facts of U.S. political history as applied to voting districts, and instead believe the hilariously and obviously revised "GOP gerrymandering bad" fake history?

 

You are very naive if you think that someone can be totally impartial. EVERYONE has political bias because everyone has their own agenda. This is why the US Constitution is set up with all the checks and balances it has and why it separates the executive branch from the legislative branch. Heck, there are even checks and balances on the checks and balances.

Again, who decides who the monarch is? Being a monarch, my guess that the office is for life and it is hereditary? What happens if the monarchs kids are absolute *******s? How do we get rid of them?

Finally, if you believe that intellectuals are impartial, you are even more naive than I thought. There is nothing special about intelligence that makes someone more non-partisan than someone of average intelligence.

What happens in a tie?

If the ruling party has a majority, it doesn't matter if vote is a majority or a 2/3 vote if the ruling party backs the executive.

Political beliefs do not exist in a vacuum. Just because the rules don't affect you personally doesn't mean you can't have political bias. The rules of Saudi Arabia don't affect me, but I do find many of them repugnant and if I had the power, I would totally get rid of them.

So I'm a fourth generation monarch and I'm bored and just little evil. So I decide to have some fun by making everyone's else life miserable. First I appoint a Governor General that will totally do my bidding. He turns around a appoints my buddies as Senators (or course no one else would know they were my buddies). The we start appointing really crappy judges. Now you didn't say if there was a way to remove a judge once they were appointed, but it doesn't really matter since I'm not trying to push any agenda but rather cause absolute chaos. See, even if every Governor I appoint gets thrown out, I am stopping the court system and since laws can't be passed without judicial review, I've effectively stopped the government.

 

Note* the no political bias is for the judges not the laws, they are not allowed to strike down laws based on political bias.

 

So who decides what political bias is? Since they are the highest court in the land, do they judge themselves? Another court to judge the court?

 

Well, if someone must serve ... cough, please, I'm blushing here.

It's too late to establish a monarch and would serve little purpose other than to relieve the president from having to entertain foreign guests.

But I have always loved the eloquence of the Declaration of Independence but hated the war. I wish we had just gradually emancipated ourselves from Britain, as the Canadians and I think the Australians did. It was tyrannical to an extent, but it's not like King George was Adolph Hitler.

 

If the monarch is unfit, then with a vote off 100% by the senate can remove the monarchy and the closest competent and noble person by blood to the monarch become king/queen. The original one is chosen by of the candidates that have the most impartiality, who gets the highest IQ score.

Then the side with the PM gets the win.

There should never be a case where the legislature and executive is not on the same page unless the executive is getting removed.

Of course, but in a country with a civilized constitution such gross abuses are not likely to be constitutional.

A judge can be removed if deemed incompitent or unfit by 2/3rd of the senate, the Governor general or the king/queen

The Senate or GG or K/Q

 

THIS! It was not as if they were controlling every bit of their lives, all they wanted was taxes because of the protection. The common wealth gives nations the security of knowing that if government fails their is always someone above politics that can stop them.

 

IQ?! That is one of the most bogus of all measurements of human beings. https://www.thestar.com/life/2012/12/19/iq_a_myth_study_says.html

This is where I think the American system beats the pants off of the parliamentary system. We can actually have two different parties running the country.

But that's not the point. The point is, you can be politically biased even if you are unaffected by the laws.

Ok, but the Senate and GG are appointed by the monarch, where are the checks and balances?

 

I'm sticking with the tradition set by George Washington.

The horrible, putrid concept of monarchy still exists even though the Magna Carta was signed eight hundred years ago.

Monarchy is a disease.

 

A constitutional monarchy is inheriently corrupt.

Look at England. Imagine if Senators were all appointed by the President. That's what the House of Lords is. The monarch grand titles and the ones who have titles sit on the House of Lords. The monarch can also strip titles away under some circumstances, meaning that have some direct control over who sits on the upper house of the legislature.

 

The Magna Carta didn't end the monarchy, and it wasn't supposed to. It was supposed to limit the monarch's authority over the land and rights of the English Barons.

 

The minimum requirement for using the word ‘we’ as in winning a war over 200 years ago would mean that you’re ancestors were there in that time, not digging up Turnips in Outer Mongolia.
There is no such thing as an American language; you speak English and the vast amount of today’s American ancestors had to learn it.

The average American is far more at home with Hollywood’s account of history, not wise but comforting. The Patriot is an example of fantasying history. Martin grabs the Stars and Stripes and leads the charge towards General Cornwallis's troops. The Brits are taken by surprise, and defeated. It would have taken the real Cornwallis by surprise, too, for he was never defeated in South Carolina, and he wasn't even at the Battle of Cowpens.Tavington alias Tarleton, miraculously recovered from being skewed the American banner, returned to England became a member of the British parliament and lived to the ripe old age of over eighty. Lastly Tavington, locked up men, woman and children in a church and burnt them alive. Er—no. the Germans did that 200 years later in WW2.

 

The majority of American voters wanted neither Gore nor either Clinton - that is, neither Bill nor Hillary - as President.
Why should they have won?

Why do you not understand how elections work in the US?

 

Excuse me? How would drawing maps that made more geographical sense do away with voting rights?

 

It was the beginning, the first ray of hope. It's fruition should be complete by now.

 

Ever heard the term "tyranny of the majority"?

 

Because peoples habitation patterns seldom follow strict geography.

 

That's very naive. The party in charge of drawing the districts now use very sophisticated computer modeling to determine which method of district drawing will most benefit their party.

 

Gerrymandering did not start with the GOP after the 2000 census you know.

 

Of course not. When did I say that?

 

I just noticed the bitching and moaning about gerrymandering didn't seem so prominent when the Democrats controlled most of the state legislatures across the country.

 

Nice word salad, but your point falls flat. Try again.

 

We agree on that at least