3 ms·

I live in Canada. Some benefits of the monarchy vs the US system: * Much of the pomp and prestige of the state gets vested in the Governor General. Whereas in

by graeme 3y ago

I live in Canada. Some benefits of the monarchy vs the US system: * Much of the pomp and prestige of the state gets vested in the Governor General. Whereas in the US the president gets treated like a monarch * People swear allegiance to the monarchy and the state. They serve that rather than the leader * In the event the prime minister goes truly insane, there is an outside check on their power. People dismiss these but we have some pretty recent experience down south of someone who could have stood to have less than absolute authority. (Much of the difference also comes down to parliamentary vs presidential system. Presidential system has had awful results everywhere it has been tried outside the USA) Monarchical countries as a rule tend to be more stable than others.

philwelch 3y ago
> People swear allegiance to the monarchy and the state. They serve that rather than the leader Oaths of allegiance in the US are sworn to the Constitution, not to any particular leader.
skissane 3y ago
> Much of the difference also comes down to parliamentary vs presidential system Pretty much all the ways you mention in which the Canadian system is superior to the US system are nothing to do with monarchy vs republic at all, they are about parliamentary vs presidential. Canada would have all the same advantages if it became a parliamentary republic like Ireland or Germany.
908B64B197 3y ago
> Much of the pomp and prestige of the state gets vested in the Governor General. Whereas in the US the president gets treated like a monarch The only truth in that statement is that, should the president start behaving like a monarch he can be removed just like King George or Louis XIV were thanks to the second amendment. How about the Governor General? > People swear allegiance to the monarchy and the state. They serve that rather than the leader The Oats of Allegiances in America are to the constitution, a founding document signed and agreed upon by all states who formed the republic. It is the voice of the people. The president is only there to enforce it temporarily. > In the event the prime minister goes truly insane, there is an outside check on their power. Is it? Can realistically a foreign non-elected person interfere that much in the country's politics? That sounds like a slippery slope to say the least. The prime minister controls both the executive and legislative branches, removing a lot of the checks and balances built into the American system. Not only that, but the absence of a real constitution -they just at some point decided the constitution wouldn't apply when truckers started protesting- makes the judiciary branch (appointed by the prime minister) pretty much able to do as it pleases.

by graeme 3y ago

philwelch 3y ago

> People swear allegiance to the monarchy and the state. They serve that rather than the leader Oaths of allegiance in the US are sworn to the Constitution, not to any particular leader.

skissane 3y ago

> Much of the difference also comes down to parliamentary vs presidential system Pretty much all the ways you mention in which the Canadian system is superior to the US system are nothing to do with monarchy vs republic at all, they are about parliamentary vs presidential. Canada would have all the same advantages if it became a parliamentary republic like Ireland or Germany.

908B64B197 3y ago

> Much of the pomp and prestige of the state gets vested in the Governor General. Whereas in the US the president gets treated like a monarch The only truth in that statement is that, should the president start behaving like a monarch he can be removed just like King George or Louis XIV were thanks to the second amendment. How about the Governor General? > People swear allegiance to the monarchy and the state. They serve that rather than the leader The Oats of Allegiances in America are to the constitution, a founding document signed and agreed upon by all states who formed the republic. It is the voice of the people. The president is only there to enforce it temporarily. > In the event the prime minister goes truly insane, there is an outside check on their power. Is it? Can realistically a foreign non-elected person interfere that much in the country's politics? That sounds like a slippery slope to say the least. The prime minister controls both the executive and legislative branches, removing a lot of the checks and balances built into the American system. Not only that, but the absence of a real constitution -they just at some point decided the constitution wouldn't apply when truckers started protesting- makes the judiciary branch (appointed by the prime minister) pretty much able to do as it pleases.