the u.s.g. is a constitutional monarchy

[Anarchist420]

the president's veto is close to absolute although the monarch's veto is not absolute because the latter would face a rebellion.

the president is not elected by the people.

supreme court justices serve for life so the policies of the old executive last unless a new executive comes in who appoints judges that are different from the old president.

ex-presidents have tremendous influence in ways other than their policies lasting through the supreme court they chose.

and the constitution simply set the govt up similar to the way the british govt was in 1789 (and still is) and the only reason the former needed to be written rather than unwritten is because the supreme court needed something to pretend to interpret.

anyway, i think that constitutions only come in two kinds: 1. a treaty by a league of sovereigns all of whom voluntarily agree to be equal to each other and to not be above any law. 2. legislation that institutes a State in which its subjects are bound to by force.

so why do so many people think that the u.s. constitution is effectively any different from the u.k.'s constitutional monarchy?

 

[BUnit1701]

It's quite apparent from your screen-name and postings that your are unaware of the dangers of the form of government known as Anarchy. When there are no laws and no one to enforce societal norms, you are at the mercy of the whims of the mob.

Also, you seem to lack the ability to see the potential in government formed as outlined in the Constitution. While I wholeheartedly agree with you that our current, modern system has disintegrated into at best an oligarchy and at worst a tyrannical monarchy, having the powers of government appropriately split between different institutions (3 branches separation, true federalism) can be a very effective check on government overreach. However, the system relies upon informed citizens both serving in the mechanization of government as well as actively participating in the election cycle to ensure that those who seek to enhance their personal power or the power of the central government will be removed.

 

[Anarchist420]

It's quite apparent from your screen-name and postings that your are unaware of the dangers of the form of government known as Anarchy. When there are no laws and no one to enforce societal norms, you are at the mercy of the whims of the mob.

the same can still happen with a govt and the govt can take the place of "the mob". and im not sure what you mean by societal norms. societal norms are not good... they may not be all bad, but they are not all good, assuming you mean behavioral norms. norms are never good, they're neutral... they're value free.

there are many things in place that restrain individuals from initiating violence (or succeeding at carrying out violence) without govt and then with the govt you still have individuals initiating violence in addition to the govt.

Also, you seem to lack the ability to see the potential in government formed as outlined in the Constitution. While I wholeheartedly agree with you that our current, modern system has disintegrated into at best an oligarchy and at worst a tyrannical monarchy, having the powers of government appropriately split between different institutions (3 branches separation, true federalism) can be a very effective check on government overreach.

the constitution sets up potential for the govt. it does not recognize the natural right of exit for example and it does not acknowledge that it is a privilege to hold public office or that the president should protect liberty. nor does it expressly acknowledge that its own powers beyond its borders should be non-existent or limited

please do better.