02-29-2024, 06:18 PM
august Wrote:Constitutional monarchies are LIBARDISM but just at an earlier stage of development. See 1848. It's still LIBTARDISM all the same and when all is said and done you're left with something like the Noble and Virtuous House of Windsor. RE: the practicality of your "ideal": a ~democratically~ elected Premier that has no check on the monarch is literally powerless, and since he was popularly elected he would have no incentive at all to not overthrow or relegate to mere ceremonial status the monarch that he is required to be subservient to.Historically you're not wrong, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with constitutional law. During the middle ages kings were not all powerful, the age of absolute monarchies in western Europe was something that only arrived with early modernity. Kings have historically been limited by the law, the feudal contract, and their vassals and peers. There's nothing wrong with this, there needs to be checks and balances or otherwise you run the risk of a mad or incompetent ruler wrecking the nation. I think constitutional law is a good method to reign in the behavior of a potentially bad king.
The Premier would be the head of the King's Cabinet, he would be powerful and influential as an advisor, and as a representative of the common people. The Premier of-course would not actually be FROM the common people, a potential candidate should be a landed aristocrat himself with ties to the royal family. Yes my idea isn't really democratic, but democracy is fake and gay anyway. It's just to give an ILLUSION of democracy to keep people content. It's bread and circuses, and a game for lesser nobility to play to earn prestige and get the ear of the king.
Since the Premier comes from the nobility himself, he would not want to to destroy the monarchy. In the worst case scenario, it would be in the Premier's best interest to merely use his influence to supplant the current ruling family and put his in charge instead. This is always a risk to a King however, which is why it's important for a ruler to keep his vassals happy and honored.
Ideally the King would have executive and legislative powers, but judicial powers would be held by a council of nobles. The constitution would be bare bones, and would mostly be an assurance to a few fundamental rights (Free speech, guns, freedom of association, no slavery, no niggers, etcetera) The judicial branch's only role being to ensure the constitution is not being violated. If the King does violate the constitution, he is a tyrant that should be deposed by the noble council, who then crown a new king. The constitution would be decided by the first King and his vassals, and cannot be amended. It is the law.
august Wrote:There was never a chance that America would have ever done this. You have to understand the fundamental reason for having settled in America in the first place, and maybe more importantly the ideological influences of the men who established the state proper. The answer in its totality lies in, I believe, the American constitution's 1st amendment alone."Yeah, some of the ideas our founders had were good. A society ruled by landed aristocrats whose rights are protected by a constitution is good and proper. But the founders were also poisoned by Enlightenment ideals too, and didn't allow themselves to be honest about what they really wanted. They made mistakes clearly, I'm not saying what I want is actually possible historically, just that what they did was a mistake.