In last week’s column, I invited people to tell me why they thought the Constitution was flawed or unfair, or with what parts they disagree. The following email is among the most unique opinion I think I've ever heard with regard to our government. I received permission from the writer to post it on my blog.
I am someone who is an oddity. I happen to think the Constitution is flawed, and limited, and do disagree with the US Founding Fathers on a great many issues, particularly Thomas Jefferson. That said, I am not a Liberal. I'm a Loyalist, who is very attached to my British Ancestry, and who cannot morally accept the American Revolution as I see it as simple Treason against the legal Government, and who also believes that most of the complaints against the Crown by the Rebels were not valid, and believe that the legitimate Grievances could have been settled by peaceful means.
I do not love Democracy. In fact, neither did the US Founders. However, I’m not a Republican either. I think Elected Governance and Republican rule is simply not efficient, and, contrary to conventional wisdom, I don’t link it to freedom as a necessary component. I believe we can be free to live in Liberty even under a Monarchy.
I am a Constitutional Monarchist, who believes that the old (Not new) Parliamentary system works best, in which we have unelected Lords, some Hereditary, some Spiritual, and some appointed, should be a component to Government. Oddly the US Founders wouldn’t disagree as much on this, except the Hereditary Peerage, and possibly the Spiritual Peerage. It wasn’t until 1913 that Senators where elected anyway.
That said, I would also reverse the Order, save for some laws. I'd let the Commons (representatives) decide tax laws, and a few other civil matters, but would allow the King (or Queen) to make all laws, whilst setting in the Lords. The Lords would debate laws and create them, and the King approve, or else the King would create the law, and see if the Lords approve.
Then it would be passed to the elected Representatives to either accept the law as-is, or to not accept, and if not accepted, to either reject it outright, or amend it. Thus I'd reverse the order, preserving rule by Consent of the Governed, but allowing the Government to be separate from the concerns I see as spoiling of the political process.
I do not think that choosing our leaders based solely on a Popularity contest works, and Barrack Obama is living proof that Charismatic figures who can capture the imagination can easily win even with no credentials or skills.
I instead favor either a King appointed for life based upon merit, or Hereditary succession, in which people are raised to rule.
I'd also favor a Neo-Feudalist system in which our individual rights are safeguarded, but in which most things are local, not centrally controlled by a remote capitol miles away.
I've given my strongest case, as you said to be brief, but can elaborate if you'd like me to.
I do love your column though, and you are on my top three of the WND columnists. Unlike the Liberals who berate you, I can at least respect, and try to understand, the views you hold civilly. I just disagree with elected Government and Republicanism in General. I also disagree with Revolutionaries who overthrow just laws.