Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 40     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
luft9989

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 126
Reply with quote  #61 

    look, first off, i want to say i'm not trying to condemn monarchy, but it would be foolish to recognize it as the only viable form of government.  Yes, a lot of the ideas for the US government are rooted in the english parliamentary system.  King George at that time had very little power and it wouldn't be much longer before parliament took the rest of it away from him.  So england was essentially a democracy.  But you are extremely wrong to think that the US government is too centralized.  The constitutional philosophy is that all the power resides in the state or province, and the state chooses which powers to share with the federal government, concurrent powers, and which to keep to itself and which to completely hand over to the federal government.  while some centralization is important in the US constitution, it also essentially says that too much centralization can be bad.  When drafts for the new US government were still being drawn up, a document called the Articles of Confederation were initially accepted as the new government, but it was not centralized enough so it was thrown out and the constitution was used.  But to say the US government is too centralized is a foolish statement, because it is in fact one of the least centralized governments in the world. 

WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #62 

 

   “King George at that time had very little power and it wouldn't be much longer before parliament took the rest of it away from him .  So england was essentially a democracy.” 

 

 

      Yes and no, by today’s standards it was not a democracy.  He wielded far more power than modern monarchs.   Yet it is true that Britain never completely recovered from English Civil War or the Inglorious Revolution of 1688 but if we would fault her for being too democratic what are we to make of the American revolt?  Whiggery had its hands in both affairs and both favored democracy.  As Dr.  Peter Chojnowski wrote:

 

 

What is most important for understanding Whiggery as it affected the make-up of the nascent United States, is the role that John Locke, secretary to the Whig leader the Earl of Shaftsbury and amateur philosopher played in the intellectual justification for the Whig Revolution of 1688. According to Locke, not only are all men equal, but society and, ultimately, the State is constituted, not by human need or necessity, but by individual men establishing a contract between them that would ‘establish’ civil society and, hence, the State…There is not the slightest doubt, that the Declaration of Independence, written by a life-long, self-professed Whig, Thomas Jefferson, expressed the Lockean Whiggish view of how governments were constituted and how they could be dissolved.”

 

 

In some ways (albeit superficial) the reign of George III was a turning back towards the policies of James II who took a greater role in governing the colonies. It has been argued that George III had reacquired some of the powers illicitly confiscated from him by parliamentarian Whigs.  We can see from this why he would have been branded a tyrant by American Whigs.   Thus Dr. Chojnowski writes   “[I]t is clear that the American Revolution was actually a civil war between American Whigs and American Tories. The result of that war was a Whiggish United States and a Tory Canada.”  

 

 

 

 

  But you are extremely wrong to think that the US government is too centralized.  The constitutional philosophy is that all the power resides in the state or province, and the state chooses which powers to share with the federal government, concurrent powers, and which to keep to itself and which to completely hand over to the federal government 

 

In theory perhaps but in practice nothing could be further from the truth.  Ask a true southern conservative if this is the case these days. 

 

 But to say the US government is too centralized is a foolish statement, because it is in fact one of the least centralized governments in the world. 

 

Who said I was comparing it to the nations of today?  Relative to modern nations the U.S. is perhaps not all that centralized.  Here I am also speaking of the increase in pervasive legislation at the federal and state level which affects all Americans at the local level even intruding in upon the family.   Never before in the history of mankind has the government had the technology, power and will to brand us all like cattle. 


__________________
"By me kings reign... and the mighty decree justice" - Proverbs 8:15-16
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Catholicmonarchists/


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #63 

I notice that you made no response to the examples I cited for how the US has centralized increasingly since birth. One step was moving from the Articles of Confederation to the current Constitution. Thomas Jefferson took another step with the Louisiana Purchase, Andrew Jackson did with the nullification crisis and President Lincoln did a great deal more when he refused to allow states which had voluntarily joined the Union to voluntarily leave it. He used military forces to arrest anyone opposed to his government in the north and to destroy the legally elected governments of the south, even on a state level ignoring the Confederate government for the moment. He passed numerous laws which he had no right to, and though the outcome is universally applauded these days, the way in which the amendment abolishing slavery was enacted was far from being "legal" but was rather passed by force of arms. FDR greatly enlarged the centralized government in countless ways, but all based on his underlying belief that it is the duty of the government to solve our problems for us and protect us from ourselves. The part of the Constitution which says that any powers not listed as belonging to the federal government are automatically held by the states -is so seldom upheld anymore as to be almost a joke.

 

 



Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #64 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guelph4ever

 The part of the Constitution which says that any powers not listed as belonging to the federal government are automatically held by the states -is so seldom upheld anymore as to be almost a joke. 

 
The "(P)art of the Constitution" is Amendments 9&10:
 

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

These are so ignored by the Federal government that the commies at the Southern Poverty Law Center can say that people should be wary of anyone who talks too much about the Ninth and Tenth Amendments because they are potential terrorists!

luft9989

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 126
Reply with quote  #65 

In theory perhaps but in practice nothing could be further from the truth.  Ask a true southern conservative if this is the case these days. 

 

-If you are referring to the US civil war, it was fought not because the federal government wanted more power but it is against the constitution for the Union to be dissolved.

WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #66 

One could argue that maintaining the union by force of arms was in itself an abuse of power.  That said I was speaking more of the movement, which gradually began the moment the ink began to dry on the U.S. Constitution, to expand  the federal government and powers at the expense of the local government.  Clearly we can point to peaks in the timeline as Guelph4ever provided.


__________________
"By me kings reign... and the mighty decree justice" - Proverbs 8:15-16
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Catholicmonarchists/
luft9989

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 126
Reply with quote  #67 

-we could go on forever about this, but the point I'm trying to make is that while you can favor monarchy, which I do, you have to recognize that other types of government may work.  Some of the things I read on this forum just seem close minded which is not how any country can prosper under any type of government.



Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #68 
Quote:
Originally Posted by luft9989

In theory perhaps but in practice nothing could be further from the truth.  Ask a true southern conservative if this is the case these days. 

 

-If you are referring to the US civil war, it was fought not because the federal government wanted more power but it is against the constitution for the Union to be dissolved.

The Civil War was fought to uphold a constitutional ban on secession?  That's certainly a new one. . . . odd though that if it was impossible for the southern states to leave the Union they still had to crawl on their bellies to be re-admitted after the war was over. Nonetheless, even if the north went to war and lost 400,000 men over a constitutional legality, it still does not disprove the point. Even by your standard the US still went to war for the *power* to enforce the constitution over states which no longer desired to be associated with it.

 

I never knew the federal government was so dedicated to defending the Constitution. . . . . .



Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #69 
Quote:
Originally Posted by luft9989

-we could go on forever about this, but the point I'm trying to make is that while you can favor monarchy, which I do, you have to recognize that other types of government may work.  Some of the things I read on this forum just seem close minded which is not how any country can prosper under any type of government.

Well Bubba, this is a monarchist forum. If you went to a Communist forum I suspect you would find very little open-mindedness toward capitalism and I don't think many Islamic forums would talk about how nations can prosper under Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism. I'm sure if that's the test they would all seem very close-minded.

 

Obviously some countries have done well as republics, at least as well as some monarchies, and there are some republics, at certain periods of time, that I do approve of such as Spain under Franco, Austria under Dollfuss, Portugal under Salazar or Ecuador under Moreno -of course all of them had monarchist sympathies but, I'm a monarchist and make no bones about it.

WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #70 

 

Obviously some countries have done well as republics, at least as well as some monarchies, and there are some republics, at certain periods of time, that I do approve of such as Spain under Franco, Austria under Dollfuss, Portugal under Salazar or Ecuador under Moreno -of course all of them had monarchist sympathies but, I'm a monarchist and make no bones about it.

 

These republics prospered because, one they were not all that democratic and two, the men that lead them.  They show, in my opinion, the exception to the rule that is brought about by great men.  Because of the system we are dealing with a weaker man may make a good monarch but it takes a stronger man to make a good president.

 


__________________
"By me kings reign... and the mighty decree justice" - Proverbs 8:15-16
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Catholicmonarchists/
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,788
Reply with quote  #71 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guelph4ever

 

Spain under Franco



And let's not forget that from 1947 on, Franco's Spain was officially a monarchy, though with the throne vacant.


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #72 

That legal technicality would hold more weight with me if Franco had restored the monarchy while he was alive. Given recent events it might, perhaps, have been better to, or even maybe pass the throne to someone else. If he had, he might have been better able to ensure that the traditional Spanish culture did not die with him as it seems to have today.

 

Had I been naming non-royal leaders of technically monarchist governments I would have also named General Juan Almonte who was head of the regency in Mexico City prior to the arrival of Emperor Maximilian. Almonte and his government restored vast properties to the Church, reestablished the official religion of the state and even made it mandatory for everyone on the street to kneel when the Eucharist was carried past in procession. Anastasio Bustamante and Miguel Miramon were also two of the better Mexican presidents.



Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #73 
Quote:
Originally Posted by luft9989

 

-If you are referring to the US civil war, it was fought not because the federal government wanted more power but it is against the constitution for the Union to be dissolved.

 
Of  course, there is nothing in the Constitution forbidding secession, nor is there any binding court decision! In fact, secession was made illegal, not unconstitutional, ex post facto, by the passage of a law by congress in '66 or '67, if my memory serves me.
MonarchistPilot1986

Registered:
Posts: 419
Reply with quote  #74 

It seems to me with that monarchy in America is a pretty big no. The Left will never allow it, and the right wing is full of neo-cons who ramble about the glory of "Freedom". With this mentality, how would America every rasie up a king? Then again, how did they ever raise up a democracy? Convert the people. Perhaps the question is, is it moral for we monarchists to revolt against the US Government, given innocent life could be destroyed?

 

Europe seems more likely, but with the EU, I wonder how things will begin working out? And think of what the UN would do if say France restored a traditional monarchy? And the Muslims of France? I can imaigine them starting a jihad. It seems to me the restoration will be very difficult.


I often question why I am a monarchist. I believe in it, but I often have doubts of its restoration--fully that is. Even the Catholic Church has become Masonic. So how do we expect a Catholic Europe until Holy Mother Church comes to her senses and puts Vatican II in the trash?


__________________
Long live the Russian Empire! God save the Tsar! God save the Tsar! God save the Tsar!
WhiteCockade

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 316
Reply with quote  #75 

I agree with your post completely (though I am more optimistic perhaps). I would think it would take the fall of the American republic, which is inevitable whether in the near of distant future. Catholic and royalist France shall rise again.


__________________
"By me kings reign... and the mighty decree justice" - Proverbs 8:15-16
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Catholicmonarchists/
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.