If everybody’s sovereign, nobody’s sovereign, and nobody’s subject, so those who can, will do whatever they wish, to whomever they wish.
For Christians, the Christian God is sovereign (hence the title “Lord”) over all Creation, and human sovereigns serve subject to Him, accountable to Him.
The Monarchy in England/Britain was always among the people, representing the Sovereignty of the people, the Nation. They weren’t “angels in the form of men,” and they weren’t perfect, but they were part of a system.
In the American Constitution what we have is less a system where different branches, divided branches, and levels of government, check each other’s abuses, than a CABAL – ‘I scratch your back, you scratch mine.’ (At least in Britain acts of government need the Sovereign’s assent, somebody who can say NO to the cabal. If government acts needed “the sovereign’s” assent here, we’d all get to vote on every government measure – which of course would be inefficient.) But this may be how the “Founding Fathers” and “Framers” intended it, wealthy White planters and traders – CABAL – that they were. Certainly no President of the Executive Branch has ever been removed from office – have we really finally “found angels in the form of men to govern us”?!!! – and no State has ever stood in the way of Federal abuses. (Though I’m not against the Federal government blocking State abuses, as happened not infrequently in the second half of the 20th century.) Deals between the Houses of Congress and the Executive Branch go on all the time, and the politicization of the Supreme Court and the rest of the Federal Bench has become legendary.
“In a republic the people reign, they do not rule.” Who rules? Our cabalistas, the influential persons connected with our all-but-sovereign corporations, our ignoble rich, the pseudo-educated “neocons,” the big media barons, and the power-mad, hypocritical leaders of conservative Evangelical and Fundamentalist sects… as well as all who truly follow or emulate any of these.
If government excludes Nobles, then the ignoble will predominate!
“Law” used to be a combination of judicial precedent/”wisdom of the court,” legal and political custom, tradition, faith, morality, learned analysis, justice, solidarity, ‘what should be,’ the needs of society, as well as the interplay among Monarchy, Royal advisers and generals, governmental Administrators, Church Hierarchy (bishops and abbots), Lay Nobility, and elected Representatives of the Commons; etc. Now it’s whatever a short-sighted, selfish, activist, falsely-influential minority from day to day says it is. Such false democratism needs to be balanced by other things.
There is no “people of the United States” outside the non-legally-binding Preamble to the Constitution of 1787. There are only the peoples of the Several States.
Maybe the Monarchy Party should change its name to the Crown-and-People Party!
Restoring the representation of State legislative houses in the U.S. Senate would restore the dignity of the U.S. House of Representatives and of the States, and provide more check on the Executive Branch. But no statewide campaigning or “non-binding” elections should be allowed, so Senators truly represent the States as States again, as bodies politic, ie, their legislative chambers, and not campaign contributors/bribers.
Then we institute full public campaign financing for the House of Representatives, to remove their beholdenness to contributors/bribers also.
Either House of Congress should be able to Impeach, requiring the other House to try its Impeachments. The present model is based on the UK Parliament, where the Commons impeaches, and the Lords, who traditionally include a judicial function, try impeachments; but the U.S. Senate has never had a judicial function otherwise. (Of course now in the UK, where they look fixed to remove the Law Lords from Parliament into a new Supreme Court, this distinction between even the Houses of Parliament would cease to exist, giving even less reason for it in America.)
Responsible Government (ie, “parliamentary”) needs limitations on it to mitigate the occasional phenomenon of virtual “elective dictatorship.”
There are more guns per capita in Canada than in the U.S. Why do more Americans than Canadians shoot each other, or die of accidental gunshot wounds?
It’s easier to prevail upon the morality, wisdom, etc., of one Monarch, than of 218 (or 290) out of 435 members of the House of Representatives, 51 (or 60, or 67) out of 100 Senators, one President, and five out of nine Supreme Court Justices. On the other hand, it’s easier to suborn the latter than the former, especially if she is unbribeable and not subject to electoral politics.
The Founders and Framers were two-faced. When it served their purposes, they treated the King of Great Britain as an absolute despot when even in the late 18th century he was limited by his Council and relations with Parliament; yet they treated many Colonial governors as limited by their Councils, when they were ultimately answerable only to London. So why didn’t they give the President a Council? They gave him more power than the Kings of England had since the Reformation! They didn’t even limit him to two terms!!
Was Communist Albania history’s first “atheistic state”… or was (small-R) republican America?!
The ethnic nationalism that grips Orthodox Churches has to be overcome. Maybe Victoria Clark has it right after all: ‘Phyletism vs. Hesychasm,’ ie, Tribalism vs. inclusive, pan-Orthodox repentance and humility and prayer and faithfulness and communion (koinonia). OCs in the West aren’t supposed to be so distinguished by immigrant background, nor Orthodox countries in ‘the East’ by pseudo-religious flag-waving, nor their hierarchies by whining and prostrating to the West. Of course, these phenomena are common in the West too – in fact they’ve been furthered by the West for two centuries – but that’s not my Church, mine by choice is Orthodoxy.