> 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

> 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.