Some people really annoy me. They seemingly just don't think. I was listening to this one guy I know talk and he should have just kept his mouth shut. The gist of what he was talking about was how he supported the troops but he doesn't support President Bush. He thinks we should have a government more like England's because he thinks a democracy isn't working and he believes a monarchy would be better than what we have right now. WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP! I must tell you he came from Mexico. Now I have nothing against Mexicans at all. But this one really rubbed me the wrong way and really who is he to talk? It's nothing personal but if he thinks England has a better government than America I think he should go to England. But when he left Mexico did he go to England? No, he came to America and now he thinks we should change our government.
He was saying how the people in America are corrupt and by having a monarchy it will somehow make all the corrupt people go away? I don't think so. If we had a monarchy we wouldn't have a say in who was our leader. It would be hereditary. There is a lot I don't know about English government but I do know a little about our own government. I know that there is a reason we left England and there is a reason we established a new government apart from England. There are many reasons why we left that country and it gets to me that people in this country can take that so lightly.
We have freedom and opportunity and are not controlled by a king or queen who tells us what we can or cannot do. Our government is growing larger and more powerful but the only thing that is going to stop it is the people in this country. That's why it is rather scary that this guy I talked to is part of the next generation who will make up the people of our country in the coming years. That is assuming he doesn't move to England. He's not going to move to England though because he knows that America has the better government. That's why it bothers me that he doesn't seem to consider that aspect of it.
The great thing about our government is that we can change our government. It is a government for the people and by the people and that is a lot more than the English can say about their government. This guy was saying how God upheld the standard of having a king. My brother brought up a good point though. He said that God gave the Israelites a king after they begged Him to, not because He wanted to give them a king. God's plan was for Him to be their king. I think that is the concept of America, the idea of governing yourselves and allowing God to be your own internal king. Instead of an external king who controls everything about your life and you can't impeach them! The ideas of personal freedom and responsibility were interwoven into our government and we have prospered like no other country.
It is a shame that people don't realize what has been gone through to get to where we are right now. Yeah, it's not perfect. Imperfect people run all governments. However, our government is founded on true and universal principles and they are evident in a lot of ways. We do not have a perfect government and I'm not saying we do. I'm saying that it is a heck of a lot better than England or Germany or Russia or any other place that I know of. Maybe I'm just biased, but maybe that has something to do with me being an American.
Finally, a nation or country or government is made up of people. We know that people mess up and people don't do everything just as it ought to be done. But we must realize that without God it doesn't matter how "good" your government is. If you don't acknowledge God as the ultimate authority you could have a "great" government but still fail miserably. Rome would be a good example.
Anyway, I guess I've rambled long enough. I hope this makes some kind of sense.
1 comment:
I like the post, Though your lack of understanding of English goverment surpriese me. So here is a basic pricipale of english goverment.
A constitutional monarchy is a form of monarchical government established under a constitutional system which acknowledges an elected or hereditary monarch as head of state, as opposed to an absolute monarchy, where the monarch holds absolute power. The process of government and law within a constitutional monarchy is usually very different from that in an absolute monarchy. Modern constitutional monarchies usually implement the concept of trias politica or "separation of powers", where the monarch either is the head of the executive branch or simply has a ceremonial or symbolic role.
In representative democracies that are constitutional monarchies, like the United Kingdom, the monarch may be regarded as the head of state but the prime minister, whose power derives directly or indirectly from elections, is head of government.
Although current constitutional monarchies are mostly representative democracies (called constitutional democratic monarchies), this has not always historically been the case. There have been monarchies which have coexisted with constitutions which were fascist (or quasi-fascist), as was the case in Italy, Japan and Spain, or with military dictatorships, as is currently the case in Thailand.
[edit] Absolute monarchy
In theoretical absolutism, a monarch rules with total power. Towards the end of the Middle Ages and following the Reformation, religious wars, the decline of the church, and a growing middle class resulted in the emergence of absolute leaders to provide guarantees of order. The concept of "divine right" often, as in the case of King James I/VI (King James I of England, James VI, King of Scots) covered as a justification for abuses of absolute power.
[edit] Constitutional monarchy
A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a king or queen reigns with limits to their power along with a governing body (i.e. Parliament), giving rise to the modern adage "the Queen reigns but does not rule". In constitutional monarchies the position of monarch may be hereditary, hence the need for a royal family, or elected like in Malaysia, where the Supreme Ruler or Yang di-Pertuan Agong is elected to a five-year term. In philosophy and political science, two broad justifications are given for monarchy: the British doctrine that monarchs are part of a social contract, founded on the autonomy of the individual, and the Continental doctrine that the monarch is an embodiment of the will and character of a people. Today we may view these as individualist and communitarian doctrines, which follow the broad lines of disagreement between the English-speaking nations and those of Asia and Europe. As in the older feudal regimes, monarchs may be given the title of emperor, king, prince, duke or other traditional titles of territorial rulers. In the British empire, local monarchs -- viceroys, governors general -- have sometimes been appointed. In royal families, children and collateral relatives may have subordinate titles associated with conquered provinces, as when the heir to the British throne is called the "Prince of Wales." Constitutional monarchs, even when they have little power in government, generally play active roles in civil society, especially in not-for-profit enterprises, and play a symbolic role by representing the nation. Constitutional monarchs may also be the symbolic leaders of a nation's armed forces, and play a role in maintaining constitutional government in times of crises or change of administration.
[edit] Constitutional monarchy in Great Britain
The British monarchy is considered the oldest of modern constitutional monarchies, and the model for this form of government in the English-speaking world. A constitutional monarchy was able to form in Britain across different periods of history for a complex combination of reasons: sometimes due to a lack of strong leadership, and at other times due to strong leaders short of funding, who needed to raise money to prosecute wars, and needed to address public grievances to ensure this money was forthcoming.
Historically, the English were divided on the question of the origins and justification for monarchy, but the Continental and Scottish belief in the "Divine Right of Kings" gradually gave ground to modern social-contract philosophy. The Magna Carta in 1215 is considered the first codification of the monarchy as a contract among territorial chiefs.
In the 17th Century, abuse of power by the Stuart dynasty, and their attempts to import the doctrine of "Divine Right" from Scotland, caused the British to question the royal authority and revive earlier safeguards against executive power. Parliament took several key steps to limit the power of the King. They revived the English instrument of impeachment, which held the King's ministers to be responsible for his actions; hence the King's servants could be executed for implementing unpopular policies. They forced Charles I to sign the Petition of Right that re-affirmed that the King must go through Parliament to enact new laws, taxes, etc. After signing the Petition of Right, Charles I immediately ignored it, precipitating the English Civil Wars, and the eventual beheading of the King for treason. This sent a message to future monarchs of England that they did not have absolute power. During the reign of Charles II, Parliament passed the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, which said that any prisoner taken by the King would be given a trial. This prevented the King from simply removing his enemies by sending them to jail.
When James II took the throne many people did not appreciate it when he flaunted his Catholicism. Therefore Parliament flexed its muscles once again by asking William of Orange to overthrow the king. William and his wife Mary came from the Netherlands and overthrew James II without (much) bloodshed. This was called the “Glorious Revolution”. Once William and Mary had gained control of the throne, they completely supported the constitutional monarchy. Together they signed the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which severely limited the power of the king, and gave more freedom to their subjects. One supporter of constitutional monarchy was John Locke. He wrote in his “Treatises on Government” that a direct democracy is the best form of government. He wrote that people are able to improve and rule themselves, and that people have three main rights. These rights are life, liberty, and property, and it is the government’s job to protect these rights. He also wrote that if the government is unjust the people have the right to overthrow it, a doctrine that was invoked during the American Revolution. The conflict between Scottish (Tory) and social contract (Whig) views of the monarchy came to a head in a war of succession. The deposed English and Scottish king, James II and VII, was defeated by Whig forces led by William of Orange at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690, now considered a decisive turning point in British and Irish history.
[edit] Constitutional monarchy in the Continental tradition
An independent development of constitutional monarchy occurred on the continent of Europe in the years following the French revolution. Napoleon Bonaparte is considered the first monarch to proclaim himself the embodiment of a nation, rather than a divinely appointed ruler, and this view of monarchy became the basis of continental constitutional monarchies. G.W.F. Hegel, in his Philosophy of Right (1820) gave it a philosophical justification that accorded well with evolving political theory and with Protestant Christian views of natural law. Hegel's forecast of a constitutional monarch with very limited powers, whose function is to embody the national character and to provide constitutional continuity in times of emergency, has been borne out by the development of constitutional monarchies in Europe and Japan. The largely ceremonial office of president, in some modern parliamentary democracies in Europe, Israel and other nations, can be viewed as a form of elected or appointed version of Hegel's constitutional monarch, and his forecast of the form of government suitable to the modern world may be seen as prophetic. The Russian and French Presidents, with their stronger powers, may also be seen as justified in Hegelian terms as wielding the powers suitable to the embodiment of the national will.
[edit] Modern constitutional monarchy
As originally conceived, a constitutional monarch was quite a powerful figure, head of the executive branch even though his or her power was limited by the constitution and the elected parliament. Some of the framers of the US Constitution may have conceived of the president as a being an elected constitutional monarch, as the term was understood in their time, following Montesquieu's somewhat dated account of the separation of powers in the United Kingdom; although the term "president" at that time implied someone with the powers of the chairman of a committee of equals, like the rotating "president" of the congress under the Articles of Confederation.
An evolution in political thinking would, however, eventually spawn such phenomena as universal suffrage and political parties. By the mid 20th Century, the political culture in Europe had shifted to the point where most constitutional monarchs had been reduced to the status of figureheads, with no effective power at all. Instead, it was the democratically elected parliaments, and their leader, the prime minister who had become those who exercised power. In many cases even the monarchs themselves, while still at the very top of the political and social hierarchy, were given the status of "servants of the people" to reflect the new, egalitarian reality.
In present terms, the difference between a parliamentary democracy that is a constitutional monarchy, and one that is a republic, is considered more a difference of detail than of substance, particularly in the common case in which the head of state serves the traditional role of embodying and representing the nation. This is reflected, for example, in all but the most die-hard Spanish Republicans accepting their country's returning to constitutional monarchy after the death of Francisco Franco.
[edit] Constitutional monarchies today
Today constitutional monarchies are mostly associated with Western European countries such as The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Luxembourg, Monaco, Liechtenstein and Sweden. In such cases it is the prime minister who holds the day-to-day powers of governance, while the King or Queen retains only minor powers. Different nations grant different powers to their monarchs. In the Netherlands, for example, the Queen formally appoints a representative to preside over the creation of a coalition government following a parliamentary election, while in Norway the King chairs special meetings of the cabinet.
The most significant family of constitutional monarchies in the world today are the sixteen Realms, all independent parliamentary democracies in a personal union relationship under Elizabeth II. Unlike some of their continental European counterparts, the Monarch and her Governors-General in the Commonwealth Realms hold significant "reserve" or "prerogative" powers, to be wielded in times of extreme emergency or constitutional crises usually to uphold parliamentary government.
In both Britain and elsewhere, a common debate centers around when and when not it is appropriate for a monarch to use his or her political powers. When a monarch does act, political controversy can often ensue, partially because the neutrality of the crown is seen to be compromised in favor of a partisan goal. While political scientists may champion the idea of an "interventionist monarch" as a check against possible illegal action by politicians, the monarchs themselves are often driven by a more pragmatic sense of self-preservation, in which avoiding political controversy can be seen as an important way to retain public legitimacy and popularity.
Post a Comment