Monarchy to Come to U.S. -

[g_bambino]

Besides, removing an errant or unwanted monarch has been more troublesome than removing an errant President. Most of the cases have involved considerable intrigue, assassination, open warfare and revolt. There really is no constitutional convention in our system for it.

There certainly is a way to remove an unwanted monarch without assassination, war, or revolt: an act of parliament. Of course, with the Commonwealth realms being in personal union, it requires acts of parliaments, but the added complexity didn't get in the way of Edward VIII's ousting from the thrones of seven countries in 1936. The same could happen today, though, per Section 41 of the Constitution Act 1982, it would require the unanimous consent of all of Canada's legislatures to any such bill touching on the Crown in Canada.

[+]

Edited June 17, 2010 by g_bambino

[jbg]

Besides, removing an errant or unwanted monarch has been more troublesome than removing an errant President.

I would say that the process by which Nixon was removed, that spanned from the very beginning of 1973 to August 8, 1974 was quite traumatic. During this period the economy went into the soup and much inadvisable legislation was passed as a result of the crippling of the executive branch.

Not a period of time I'd wish to see repeated.

[g_bambino]

Because our monarch and the british monarch are the same person, there is nothing stopping us from appointing a Catholic monarch.

That makes no sense. The constitutional requirement that our monarch and the British monarch must be the same person is exactly what's stopping us from installing a Catholic sovereign. There's only two ways we could have a Catholic monarch: 1) convince all the Commonwealth realms governments to amend the Act of Settlement as it exists in their respective constitutions to remove the provisions barring Catholics from the throne, or 2) ignore or repeal the preamble to the Statute of Westminster and split our line of succession from those of the other realms by amending the Act of Settlement in our constitution.

[+]

Edited June 17, 2010 by g_bambino

[Guest TrueMetis]

That makes no sense. The constitutional requirement that our monarch and the British monarch must be the same person is exactly what's stopping us from installing a Catholic sovereign. There's only two ways we could have a Catholic monarch: 1) convince all the Commonwealth realms governments to amend the Act of Settlement as it exists in their respective constitutions to remove the provisions barring Catholics from the throne, or 2) ignore or repeal the preamble to the Statute of Westminster and split our line of succession from those of the other realms.

What constitutional requirement is that? Our Monarch does not have to be the Monarch of the UK, and there is nothing stopping us from changing the rules to allow a Catholic to be the monarch.

[g_bambino]

What constitutional requirement is that? Our Monarch does not have to be the Monarch of the UK, and there is nothing stopping us from changing the rules to allow a Catholic to be the monarch.

The preamble to the Statute of Westminster:

And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:

As the Ontario Superior Court put it:

As a result of the Statute of Westminster it was recognized that any alterations in the rules of succession would no longer be imposed by Great Britain and, if symmetry among commonwealth countries were to be maintained, any changes to the rules of succession would have to be agreed to by all members of the Commonwealth. This arrangement can be compared to a treaty among the Commonwealth countries to share the monarchy under the existing rules and not to change the rules without the agreement of all signatories. While Canada as a sovereign nation is free to withdraw from the arrangement and no longer be united through common allegiance to the Crown, it cannot unilaterally change the rules of succession for all Commonwealth countries. Unilateral changes by Canada to the rules of succession, whether imposed by the court or otherwise, would be contrary to the commitment given in the Statute of Westminster...

O'Donohue v. The Queen

I imagine, though, that if the preamble were altered or repealed, there'd be nothing stopping Canada from having as its monarch a different person to whomever was acting as sovereign of the other Commonwealth realms.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Maybe I'm reading that differently than you but all that seems to say is that if we wanted a different monarch we either have to get all the commonwealth countries to agree or leave the commonwealth. That doesn't stop us from doing it just makes it less likely.

Edited June 17, 2010 by TrueMetis

[g_bambino]

[A]ll that seems to say is that if we wanted a different monarch we either have to get all the commonwealth countries to agree or leave the commonwealth.

We can't be reading it all that differently, because that's exactly what I said (assuming that by "leave the commonwealth" you mean "split from the Commonwealth Realms"; we wouldn't have to leave the Commonwealth at all):

There's only two ways we could have a Catholic monarch: 1) convince all the Commonwealth Realms governments to amend the Act of Settlement as it exists in their respective constitutions to remove the provisions barring Catholics from the throne, or 2) ignore or repeal the preamble to the Statute of Westminster and split our line of succession from those of the other Realms by amending the Act of Settlement in our constitution.

But you said...

Because our monarch and the british monarch are the same person, there is nothing stopping us from appointing a Catholic monarch.

...which isn't at all the same thing.

[ToadBrother]

Because our monarch and the british monarch are the same person, there is nothing stopping us from appointing a Catholic monarch.

Um, yes there is, because it would violate the Act of Settlement 1701, which were are bound to by the Statute of Westminster. A few folks seem to fly this theory that we could somehow name someone other than the recognized Heir to the Throne upon the death of the Queen, but that is simply not constitutionally possible, not without an amendment which would effectively break us from a whole raft of constitutional law that governs the secession.

[ToadBrother]

I imagine, though, that if the preamble were altered or repealed, there'd be nothing stopping Canada from having as its monarch a different person to whomever was acting as sovereign of the other Commonwealth realms.

Well yes, amending the constitution could do that, but the point is that it would mean amending the constitution. Who our reigning monarch ends up being is defined by the Act of Settlement and basically by the agreement of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth Realms (which are coeval in questions of secession).

If we're going to go the trouble of breaking with the British Monarchy, then at that point you might as well turn it into a republic, because you're 99.9% of the way there. But the same difficulties, complexities and dangers that go along with becoming a republic go along with rejecting the Statute of Westminster and the Act of Settlement, it's a major change that would invoking the amending formulas as referenced in the Constitution Act, 1982.

Simply put, this oft-repeated claim that we can just name someone else as Sovereign upon the death of the Queen is false, and it was the chief purpose of the Statute of Westminster to make sure all the Realms were in accordance on recognizing whoever, as defined by the principles set out in the Act of Settlement, was to succeed to the throne. We are bound by that, unless we choose to actively and explicitly alter the constitution. I mean, it would be like saying "Parliament can just unilaterally remove the right of Habeas Corpus".

Edited June 17, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Guest TrueMetis]

We can't be reading it all that differently, because that's exactly what I said (assuming that by "leave the commonwealth" you mean "split from the Commonwealth Realms"; we wouldn't have to leave the Commonwealth at all):

But you said...

...which isn't at all the same thing.

Maybe I'm just not getting it or maybe we've got different interpretations of what's been said. I don't consider those acts to be stopping us just as something we have to do if we ever decide to change our monarch. It would be difficult to do but it's not like someone from the commonwealth is going to actively stop us.

[g_bambino]

Well yes, amending the constitution could do that, but the point is that it would mean amending the constitution.

Yes, of course; that's what I'm saying, too. The Statute of Westminster and the Act of Settlement are both now Canadian law, being part of our constitution, and both would definitely have to be amended if we ever wished our line of succession to stop being parallel to those of the other Commonwealth Realms.

I don't see, though, how such a project could take us anywhere near a republic. Becoming a republic wouldn't be as simple as replacing the words "Queen" and "Governor General" in the constitution with "President"; there would be a multitude of new issues to work out: what to do with the Royal Prerogative, how to codify the reserve powers, how to select the president, how to restructure the relationship between Ottawa and the provinces, what to do with the provincial lieutenant governors, and so on. On the other hand, giving ourselves a different monarch to that of the other Realms would change nothing other than the person on our throne; Canada's already a kingdom in its own right. Yes, we'd probably want to write out the redundant Office of the Governor General, but even that wouldn't be necessary and would only require, literally, that the words "Governor General" be replaced with "Queen" or "King", depending on the gender of our new monarch.

But you're right that it would require the consent of all the co-sovereign legislatures in Canada, per Section 41 of the Constitution Act 1982. So, yes, people who say we can just dump the monarchy on the death of Elizabeth II do indeed know nothing about what they're talking about.

[punct]

Edited June 18, 2010 by g_bambino

[Oleg Bach]

I like the QUEEN ..To bad she is old and going to pass away sooner than later - just like all rich and powerful honourable people - having a good heir sometimes does not come about - once she is gone - it's over ...the kids are losers - much like my own.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Yes, we'd probably want to write out the redundant Office of the Governor General, but even that wouldn't be necessary and would only require, literally, that the words "Governor General" be replaced with "Queen" or "King", depending on the gender of our new monarch....

Sorry...that would be sexist...so antiquated is the notion.

[Machjo]

I could see a compromise between republic and monarchy, trying to beget the best of both worlds so to speak, with an elective and constitutional monarchy, with the monarch elected for life, until dethroned, or until retirement, whichever comes first. the question then though would be who determines whether the monarch needs to be dethroned? A 2/3 majority in the House? Some other means?

Again, in the end it's probably best for the US to just keep its republic until it can be sure that anything it replaces it with will in fact be better, and not just by a fraction, considering the costs involved in changing the whole system, constitution, etc.

[g_bambino]

I could see a compromise between republic and monarchy, trying to beget the best of both worlds so to speak.

Any constitutional monarchy already has that combination; hence the prhase "crowned republic". Sovereignty is vested in the hereditary monarch, but only through constitutional means that are overseen by the elected representatives of the populace.

[Pliny]

"Democracy: The God that Failed", by Hans-Herman Hoppe, apparently makes a case for Monarchy as the best system of government.

I will be reading the book (taking the suggestion of a poster here to "read a book") in a few weeks.

My personal opinion is that current Monarchs have realized the necessity to remove themselves from the governing process as much as possible, living as symbols and Heads of State, and let those in government face the wrath of the masses for poor governance and expressing indignation along side of the masses for poor performance BUT...retaining certain ultimate entitlements.

[bush_cheney2004]

Any constitutional monarchy already has that combination; hence the prhase "crowned republic". Sovereignty is vested in the hereditary monarch, but only through constitutional means that are overseen by the elected representatives of the populace.

Why does the concept of a "hereditary" monarch still have value or relevance in a constitutional monarchy? Why couldn't any swinging Dick or Jane be the monarch?

[Pliny]

Why does the concept of a "hereditary" monarch still have value or relevance in a constitutional monarchy? Why couldn't any swinging Dick or Jane be the monarch?

You must be able to hold your pinky in the proper position at the proper time - and timing is important.