Democracy is flawed
- Thread starter a11n
- Start date
well a democratic republic is better than a democracy, but a hybrid of a constitutional monarchy and a democratic republic would be best
the sole constitutional power of the monarch would be to veto legislation
the sole constitutional power of the monarch would be to veto legislation
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
well a democratic republic is better than a democracy, but a hybrid of a constitutional monarchy and a democratic republic would be best
the sole constitutional power of the monarch would be to veto legislation
And where does said monarch get any legitamcy to veto MY legislation? Because his father fucked his mom and he popped out? It's full of shit. There should be no veto.
wm
a monarch is the last resort to preventing the tyrany of the majority over the minority
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I'm kind of in agreement with DQ. I hate democracy and I also hate monarchy. The founders debated this and created the presidency, but its powers were intended to be essentially a veto check on the two chambers of Congress, and little else. Mostly, some argued that calling the elected executive a king would lend it credibility on the world picture. Almost no one wanted a hereditary monarch.
John Adams was one of the few who continued to respect the English Constitution. He argued that its one and only flaw was that it was unwritten, and could thus be interpreted out of existence, and that the Americans had been a victim of that flaw. Basically, he wanted a US Constitution that was written and set in stone, but essentially an update of the English model...
He did not want a monarch, but he viewed the president as en loco regis. The king's role had been to approve/reject legislation passed by parliament within the English system of checks and balances.
John Adams was one of the few who continued to respect the English Constitution. He argued that its one and only flaw was that it was unwritten, and could thus be interpreted out of existence, and that the Americans had been a victim of that flaw. Basically, he wanted a US Constitution that was written and set in stone, but essentially an update of the English model...
He did not want a monarch, but he viewed the president as en loco regis. The king's role had been to approve/reject legislation passed by parliament within the English system of checks and balances.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
DQ, a monarch is the first resort for the minority to hold tyranny over the majority.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Well let me suggest this as a more balanced veto wielding approach.
Have every state legislature elect one person to a single six year term. This person may never have held elected office before, and will be limited to a single term. He/she may never have donated any money to any of the people in the legislature.
Each person from each state will receive bills that have passed congress, and may vote up or down on each bill, without deliberation with the other members (he will basically decide from home). His will cast as many votes as there are people in his state, all the votes from all the states people will be counted up, and if a majority decide against a bill it is vetoed.
The same concept could hold for states and municipal councils.
It would be completely neutral and not as elitist as a king and not as arbitrary as a president.
Have every state legislature elect one person to a single six year term. This person may never have held elected office before, and will be limited to a single term. He/she may never have donated any money to any of the people in the legislature.
Each person from each state will receive bills that have passed congress, and may vote up or down on each bill, without deliberation with the other members (he will basically decide from home). His will cast as many votes as there are people in his state, all the votes from all the states people will be counted up, and if a majority decide against a bill it is vetoed.
The same concept could hold for states and municipal councils.
It would be completely neutral and not as elitist as a king and not as arbitrary as a president.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
GUNS ARE MROE PROTANT THAN ANYTHANG!
wm/ahz
i am a devout believer in private ownership of weapons
my proposed monarch's only power would be to veto legislation
there would be a written constitution that all (including the monarch) would be subject to
there would still be a supreme court, legislature and president as we have now
the second amendment would need to be clarified and strengthened
the term 'well regulated' at the time of the its writing meant well provisioned - remember the minutemen
while i may be insane, that does not mean that i cannot think and reason