Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Yakk · 03-23-2005, 11:09 AM

Modern Constitutional Monarchies are ambiguous institutions.

While the US holds up the Constitution as the basis of their government, Constitutional Monarchies hold up comprimise. You do things because that is what works. You don't do things because it doesn't work.

Sure, the Queen is increadibly powerful. On paper. If the Queen exercised that power, the government might feel ethically justified in opposing the Queen. In the same way, if the government exercised their power, the Queen might feel ethically justified in opposing the government.

In the USA, opposing the President is opposing the State, an act many associate with treason. In Britian and Canada, the Prime Minister is technically just a functionary (with lots of power) -- opposing the PM is just disagreeing with one elected random joe, not the personified embodyment of the nation.

Meanwhile, the head of state, the Queen, does very little. You can hold her up as a figurehead -- and while opposing her is technically treason, she doesn't stand for any political policies. Disagreeing with the government is no longer treason. Saying your head of government is an idiot, an asshole, or a fool is acceptable.

When the government's power is only restricted by words in a lawbook, the government is unrestrained. Because laws have no power over man. Tradition does.

03-23-2005, 11:09 AM	#34 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	Modern Constitutional Monarchies are ambiguous institutions. While the US holds up the Constitution as the basis of their government, Constitutional Monarchies hold up comprimise. You do things because that is what works. You don't do things because it doesn't work. Sure, the Queen is increadibly powerful. On paper. If the Queen exercised that power, the government might feel ethically justified in opposing the Queen. In the same way, if the government exercised their power, the Queen might feel ethically justified in opposing the government. In the USA, opposing the President is opposing the State, an act many associate with treason. In Britian and Canada, the Prime Minister is technically just a functionary (with lots of power) -- opposing the PM is just disagreeing with one elected random joe, not the personified embodyment of the nation. Meanwhile, the head of state, the Queen, does very little. You can hold her up as a figurehead -- and while opposing her is technically treason, she doesn't stand for any political policies. Disagreeing with the government is no longer treason. Saying your head of government is an idiot, an asshole, or a fool is acceptable. When the government's power is only restricted by words in a lawbook, the government is unrestrained. Because laws have no power over man. Tradition does. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.