Would anyone else agree that we should have a Queen and King to rule the US instead of a president?

Question

Please post your opinion and why.
Thanks!

Answer 1

I would not support that. It violates our Constitution.

Answer 2

I agree just anything is better than what we have in office at the present. The only thing about a King & Queen they never go until they die and then their first born is made the King or Queen. Of course like England you vote for a Prime Minister where we vote for a President. Tony Blair makes all the decision like a President , so why would need for a King and Queen?. With this Administration we have a King or rather a Dictator

Answer 3

It replaced into the heavy-handedness of the English monarchy that led to the yank revolution in the first position. If a ruler is all-effective, there is not any ensure that he or she should be benevolent to the topics. after all, it really is strong to be the king. a political candidate, on the different hand, a minimum of has to rigidity about re-election if he peeves off sufficient people. The democratic equipment also facilitates impeachment if an elected representative is so undesirable that the inhabitants feels he could no longer end his time period of place of work. So, even as I type of like royalty, I in person-friendly words like it for its traditions. because the U.S. has no traditonal royal kin, it ought to under no circumstances fly in the USA of a.

Answer 4

You weren't clear on whether you were advocating a constitutional monarchy or an absolute monarchy as an alternative to the constitutional representative democracy we currently have. In an an absolute monarchy, the monarch has total political power vested in themselves although they may have a ceremonial or powerless branch of elected officials. In a constitutional monarchy, the king or queen is the official head of state (public representative) but not the head of government (the function usually reserved for a prime minister).

One of the strongest arguments made for a constitutional monarchy is that the head of state is raised to the job of national representation. However, that individual has no real choice in the matter and may turn out to be a dreadful representative, but by matter of birth the country is stuck with them. With an elected head of state/head of government such as the US has, we don't get people "bred to the job" but we do get to toss them out periodically.

On the matter of the merits of an absolute monarchy, I have heard it argued that a benevolent ruler can do great good for a country (such as King Hussein of Jordan) while poorly chosen elected officials can mire a country's prospects (let's stick with the Middle East here & point out the election of Hamaas to power in Palestine). However, unless the democratically elected head of state seizes extra-constitutional powers (such as Hugo Chavez has done in Venezuela), the poor head of state can again be removed from office in favor of someone else by a regular means. On the other hand, a coup d'etat or revolution (both violent measures) are required to remove a non-benevolent monarch from power.

As not all people are good and altruistic, the time will inevitably come when a nation has a bad leader. The old maxim says "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Investing absolute power in an individual hastens the timeline for a bad head of state/head of government and gives the bad rulers more opportunity to wreck havoc. Even people whose hearts were in the right place go wrong (look at Tolkein's Denethor and Sauroman for fictional examples) and a bad ruler can wreck innumerable damages over long term periods (examine the effects of Henry VIII or George III).

No, I don't believe we'd be better off with either an absolute or a constitutional monarchy, because I do not believe people are fit to govern by accident of birth, nor should a nation be forced to endure a bad monarch because that individual inherited a title.

Answer 5

No, that would be pointless and a waste of time. Royal Family's are simply "figure heads", such as in Britain. They are the continuation of traditions that people don't seem to want to get rid of. They waste money, time and energy.

Besides who would really want an absolute monarch with uncontrollable power to tell us what to do? Isn't that the same ideal we fought agains't during the revolutionary war? wow, changing from president to king/queen would revert our society back over 200 years of progress.

I don't think people really want that.

Answer 6

have you lost your mind! It's bad enough that are presidents are getting worse and worse because only the rich can run for office - we certainly don't need a royal family of inbreds to lead us!

I may disagree with our leaders, but this is still the best country to be in. Move if yoiu don't like it and want a monarchy. You'll be happier in theUK paying taxes out the nose!

Answer 7

Actually, I think that would be a bad idea. When we get a bad President, we only have to deal with him/her for 4 or 8 years. If we had royalty, we would be stuck with that person until he/she dies, at which point a family member of him/her would take over, who would probably also be bad.

Luckily, the Constitution forbids the U.S. from granting any citizen "nobility" status.

Answer 8

No. We've got a Royal Family here in Britain and they're useless. All they do is waste taxpayers' money. Also, after about three generations they become horribly inbred and start looking like horses.

Monarchy isn't that great. Don't bother.

Answer 9

Absolutely not. With a president we at least have some what of a say in what we want

Answer 10

No why do you think our four fathers came here it sucked having one family rule thats what the libs want but they forgot why we came to the united states in the first place freedom of speech and freedom of religion but only there speech no thank you.

Answer 11

I do not want Queen Hilary and King Bill.