Country Living Series

Friday, November 6, 2009

A unique point of view

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.




    When you see govt servants like Nancy Pelosi behave like tyrants and ignore the constiution, we have to realize there is a something very very wrong with our system.

    The problem is that there are no binding national referenda in the United States. Many other countries have it, but not the US. Therefore America's secret shame is that we do
    not have a real democracy! That is why American democracy is a joke.

    The constitution gave all the power to the 3 branches of govt. and assumed they will keep an eye on each other ("checks and balances"). To keep ultimate power in the hands of the people, they put in the second amendment. But the three branches have become corrupt, usurped power, and all three branches figured out that it is better to conspire, mug and terrorize the nationand totally ignore the owners, the US Citizens. The second amendment does not work, because the govt. armies have more weapons that can kill thousands of citizens, so the citizens with small weapons will not be able to overthrow an anarchist government.

    So they keep passing laws the against our country and the public and against our will.

    But there is a solution to this govt's war on the nation. It is a constitutional amendment to allow national referenda, so people can pass good laws in the national
    interest themselves. These laws will supersede laws passed by Congress and cannot be overturned except on constitutional grounds by a supermajority of both houses and
    unanimous vote of the Supreme Court. The people can then still pass it by 80% vote.

    Some believe that this right to amend the constitution is inherently vested in the American public. Others suggest an actual amendment.

    All laws that affect the nation as a whole, such as raising taxes, foreign aid, immigration, bailouts, and raise expenditure over the rate of inflation, spending, can be required to be passed only by the people by national referendum. We will solve 90% of our problems
    this way.

    For eg., see:

  2. I believe this person needs to move to the UK and not be allowed the use of the freedoms they so apparently denigrate. Please, who ever you are, just leave as it is so bad here for you. You don't want to be here and we don't want you here.

  3. No such thing as a perfect constitution anyway. Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. Unlike the President, Queen Elizabeth is almost powerless (even though the armed forces swear allegiance to her). It is often said that this doesn't matter - it is not the power she wields that counts, but the power she denies to anyone else.
    The British constitution is, of course, unwritten. It has just grown, and now is slowly being rendered obsolete by the increasing power of the European Union.

  4. Hi Patrice,
    I'll take the time to give some thoughtful reply to Ralph, even if you can't. Ralph's position has been the dominant political thought throughout the ages of mankind, with at least one notable exception: The U.S. was founded particularly on the thought that an elite class of rulers, even with some restraint by a popularly elected parliament or Congress, can not do a better job than an entirely popularly elected government, with everyone else acting freely. History is against you: to read the history of man is to read history of almost unstopping warfare and conflict. And in those regimes where the elites have had total control over everything (Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Khan, etc), the results are abominably worse. The USA has not been perfect (hardly!) but its record is better than the monarchies. So far. In principle, We so-called Conservatives (why do we call ourselves Conservative when we in fact adhere to the very radical thought of self-government?) state that millions of people, making their own decisions and trade-offs a hundred times a day based on need, desire, price, risk, relationships, etc etc are together able to make much better decisions on almost every item of everyday life. There are exceptions where this decision model does not work: coinage, enforcement of contracts, defense from invasion, and others. Our Constitution encodes the specific areas where the Fed has provenance, and likewise delimits broad areas that are off-limits from Federal power. Unfortunately, the US has steadily exceeded those limits, even since Geo Wash's first administration, and now we are stuck with a government totally dedicated to deciding more things for us. What doctor can we use? What light bulb should we use? Stop activities that throw CO2 in the air (when the elites jet around at will -- Question: how many jets does it take to fly a US Pres to Copenhagen?). Even when the science is notoriously suspicious? Please you stay in England with your elites. Don't come here and try to remake the US in your image. We'll both be better off if you practice restraint. Thanks (btw - I am an immmigrant, and think the US is the current best hope for freedom).

  5. It is true that our current system is ineffecient (I come from Canada where it seems to be even more so, especially when we have a minority government and we also have 5 political parties to choose from rather than just 2) and I admit that I have often thought of the merits of having a monarchy. However, what if are not in favour of what the monarchy is doing? You can't vote them out.
    I will also admit that I have thought of revolutions as being a rejection of authority, and as a Christian I feel that I am supposed to respect the authority that God has placed over me. But in the case of the French revolution, for example, the people were starving and the current King and Queen just weren't capable of running a country. So what do you do in a situation like that?
    And to whoever wrote this post, they should know that there are others out there who are loyal to the Queen and attached to their British ancestry. I have not met many, but they do exist.
    Well those are my thoughts. I really wish I knew more on the topic of government and could have better informed and better argued opinions, but alas, one could probably spend a lifetime learning about this and then still not come to any solid conclusions

  6. WLL, I dont know if my post will go through. I posted a lenghty reply to all of you, but it was too long, so Ill just say this.

    I wrote the above Email, and my name is not Ralph. I don't think I am on the wrong side of history, because I've read history long enough to know that moern trends tend to be those we have seen before, and I doubt Republicanism will last forever.

    However, I do take exception to those who link me to STalin and Mao Zedong. Don't you think that saying my system is the same as theirs is a bit silly? STalin and Mao where communists, and communism is ultimatley rooted in the same Philosophy Modern America has emrbaced. Its base don the Equality of man, Governmetn by, of, and for the people, and popular freedom. The fact that this didn't happen is besides the point, you can't be a Monarchist and support a system of thinkign that ultimatly demands the abolition of a class system, or the redistribution of wealth.

    Its Antethetical to the Monarichal position.

    I also have to sign when I read how you think I want to end freedom. Why is it that epopel asusme that Freedom requires Democracy? And that if you live under a Monarchy you somehow just cant be free?

    Keep in mind the United Kingdom is far more Democratic now than it was in 1890, and by this thinking, the Modern UK shoudl be far mroe free than it was then. Yet, in Victorian Britain you coudl own a gun, and if youused this gun in self defence because someone broke into your house, no Charges woudl be filed agaisnt you. In the Modern UK, you can't own a handgun, and if you kill soeone who just broke into your house with a lamp or soemthing, you get to go to jail to stand trial.

    I am not kidding.

    The Victorian Monarchy did not care how large you made a twlet bowl, nor did it create hate crimes bills, or hate speech laws. One was free even to critisise the Monarch, her Majesty ueen Victoria. Nowadays, if you even so uch as offend a Homosexual, a special, protected class, you can wind up fined or in jail.

    Am I really expected to beelive that Modern, Secular Democracy as advance dby the contemporary UK is freeer than that expressed by the much mor epwoerful Aristocratic modle use din the 19th century in whih the COmmons had ot virtually beg the Lords to go alogn with their plans, and the Wueen still excersised powerful executive functions?

    Come now.

    I also dont htink Republics are more peaceful than Monarchies. It snot liek every Monarhc fought a war and all Republics in hisotry sought only genlte coexistance, and one can find any number of Republican wars.

    In fact, Republics tend to be more warlike. Just look at the 20th century, or 21st.

    I'm sorry you think I support tyranny and the removal of freedom, and htink I shoudl be denied American Citesenship for my views. Ironuclaly this also proves how futile the Americn Dream is, since you cannot disscent from popular opinion.

    But my views ar emy views, and I'll explainthem if yo'd like.

    I offered to elaborate to Mrs. Lewis, precicely because I forsaw such responces, and do wish you'd give mroe credit when you read such things as mine.

  7. ALSO, the aboe is a spell checked version of my posting. I never said in the origional that this was my strongest case. In fact, its a very breif overview. I could give a much, much stronger view if I had been givenmore time.

    In addition, I must repeat that I find it incredibely odd, not to mention highly offensive, tjhat I would be linked to Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin. Do you really think that people who favour Monarchy would look doe eyed at Communist leaders who overthrew monarchies and destoryed TRaditional Culture?

    Monarchies thrive in Tradition, not in Revolution. They also don't do too well when the Monarch is shot to death by Revolutionaries who want to create a classless society, as happened int he Oktober Revolution in Russia.

    Neither Mao nor Stalin would appriciate my views on things, and woudl liely ave declared me an enemy of the State and of the Revolution, who would, if in heir dominions, be sentenced to Death.

    Mao had nothign good to say about the CHinese Emperors, and Stalin was a participamnt in overthrowing the Monarhcy in Russia.

    How do you get the idea that they would be the same as my views?


  8. I would be very interested in hearing more of what you have to say on this topic, if you feel like writing more

  9. I will. And sorry for hte anger. Ive been abused for my beelifs before, but to compare me to Stalin nd Mao was a bit much.

    I mean, Communism is a form of Democracy, even though we tend not to think of it as such because of how we oppose it in our modern Ameican Culture. I came to realise this is mainly due to the Dualist thinking, which is one of the flaws Ive seen in humanity in general. Most COnservarive Americans see us in two camps, the Pro-American Conservative Camp that would Honur our fundign Fathers and htier dream and want us to be free, or the Anti-American Liberal Camp which praises STalin and Mao, but Communism is a Revolutionary movement just like America was. It was founde don the same beleifs, the weuylity of man, freedom tot he peopel through abolition of a class system, and Universal rights. The reasn Communists fly the Red Flag was because they identified withthe COmmunards of France.

    STalin Participated in the Oktober Revolution, which overthrew the rightful Monarhc, Tzar Nicolas, and Mao killed anyone who dared speak well fo the Impirial age.

    Its just absurd to think of me in terms of communis,.

    Ill come back tomorrow or the day after to post mor en them.

    But I am far and away removed form anything in COmmunism.

    I dotn support any Revolutionary movement. Communism is all about Revolution, and revolution is simply rebellion.

    As it is written, Rebellion is as the sin of Withccraft.

  10. I was told that at least one poster will e

    I hate breaking these posts up, but there is a limit. I also fear I am being boring so Ill try to leave after three or so more.

    I'll explain more later if people are interested.