User:Sgl/It's become a Constitutional Monarchy!

American lore claims that as Benjamin Franklin left the Constitutional Convention, he was asked if the framers had created a monarchy or a republic. "A republic, if you can keep it", he replied. What would Ben Franklin think of the current US government? Considering the expansion of the Presidential powers over the last century, Ben might have concluded that the Presidency had become a limited elected Constitutional Monarchy. Also known as an imperial Presidency or plebiscitary democracy. The expansion of Presidential powers for the last sixty years is contrary to the intent of the framers of the Constitution and has been detrimental to democracy.

One definition of a constitutional monarchy is a form of national government in which the power of the monarch is restrained by the legislature, by law, or by custom. Another definition is where the elected leader has almost all of the national government power. The US does not have a King or Queen but if the President’s powers are equal to or greater than those of a King or Queen, the US system can qualify as a constitutional monarchy with different a title for the governmental head. The US has slowly changed from the original Constitutional concept of three co-equal branches of national government with separation of powers to a limited constitutional monarchy.

The one path to constitutional monarchy is to start with monarchy and later incorporate a constitutional democracy. The path of the US was to start as a constitutional government and to gradually increase the Presidential power to the point where it becomes a government within a government.

History

By custom and law the Presidency has acquired many powers not allowed in the Constitution including war powers, and national emergency powers. President Polk in 1846, started a war with Mexico and then asked the Congress for approval, which he got. President Lincoln believed that if the President could unilaterally engage the country in war then he held the power of a king. Although the Constitution states that only the Congress can start a war, since 1941, Presidents have been able to wage war without Congressional approval.

In 1939 after the start of WWII in Europe President Franklin Roosevelt declared a limited national emergency. The concept of limited national emergency seems to rest on implied and assumed powers of the President and the assertion of it by the President. On May 27, 1941, Roosevelt had determined that the nation was in a state of unlimited national emergency. Congress ended the national emergency in 1947, two years after the end of WWII.

When the limited elected Monarch, the President declares a national emergency, by law the President may seize property, organize and control businesses, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, restrict travel, and generally control the lives of United States citizens. As of 2007, sixteen Presidential declarations of national emergency were active. Some are more than thirty years old. In theory the courts and the Congress might be able to check these power. In practice, during a crisis these powers are unlikely to be checked.

Theoretically impeachment and removal would result in Presidential accountability but this has not occurred in the over two hundred history years of US history. Presidential accountability occurs during Election Day once every four years. If Ben Franklin were alive today, would he not recognize these powers are similar to those of King George III of Great Britain and consider the republic lost?

Since WWII, typically the President following an unpopular President who supported an unpopular war will exhibit restraint in the use of Presidential power. Truman and Nixon left office unpopular and also waged unpopular wars in Korea and Vietnam. Once the unpopular war is concluded, their successors, Eisenhower and Carter exhibited restraint in the use of Presidential power but they also secretly supported regime change in Iran and civil war in Afghanistan, respectively. The Vietnam War ended while Ford was President although US participation was greatly reduced by the Paris Peace Accords under Nixon. Ford exhibited restraint in the use of Presidential powers also.

How the transition occurred

In this system the limited elected Monarch, the President is given powers beyond the Constitution and the public trusts that Presidential powers are used with wisdom, judgment and restraint. However the Presidential election process is neither designed nor effective in selecting individuals with great wisdom, judgment or restraint. Because of the mismatch between the extraordinary expectations of the limited elected Monarch and their actual abilities, and other factors, public participation in elections often is low.

The enlargement of Presidential power usually accompanies a war or foreign policy crisis. During a war or crisis President can easily persuade the Congress and the courts of the necessity of expanded powers. As the crisis continues the President accumulates powers. When the crisis passes the powers remain, often hidden from public sight, to be used by subsequent Presidents. For examples look to WWII, Korean War, Cold War, Vietnam War, Yugoslav wars, the Global War on Terrorism, Afghanistan, Iraq.

Unnecessary wars, excessive secrecy and invading citizen’s privacy are at the top of my current list of abuses of Presidential power. All of these reduce the democratic responses of citizens. My purpose is to point out that the current system institutionalizes excessive Presidential power, which leads to abuses of power. Rather than recognizing this fact, many wish to believe that when the current President is replaced with a better President the abuses will be corrected. This might true for a few years. However beneficial replacing the current President will be, it will not by itself change the system of limited Constitutional Monarchy that institutionalizes excessive President powers and inevitably lead to abuses.

Quotes

Arthur M. Schlesinger writes “A constitutional Presidency, as the great Presidents had shown, could be very strong Presidency indeed. But what kept a strong President constitutional, in addition to checks and balances incorporated within his own breast, was the vigilance of the nation. Neither impeachment nor repentance would make much difference if the people themselves had come to an unconscious acceptance of the imperial Presidency. The Constitution could not hold the nation to ideals it was determined to betray.”

Father of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the fourth President James Madison said at the Constitutional Convention (06-29-1787) "In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst.[against] foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

Also he wrote in "Political Observations" (04-20-1795)
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

The Future of Constitutional Monarchy

The Constitutional Monarchy has been in place for over sixty years and most US citizens are accustomed to it. The very idea that our current Constitutional Monarchy is contrary to the Constitution and the original concept of the US, many will find difficult to understand. The Constitution at one time defined the President’s role in the US government and has proven to be a practical and effective source of guidelines for organizing the US government.

A possible path back to Constitutional government exists. The first step is to educate citizens about the current Constitutional Monarchy system. Next, the US must greatly reduce its military and end unnecessary wars and occupations so that the national government can operate on a non-crisis basis. Next, the power to end wars must be restored to Congress. Also Congress must have the ability to veto executive agreements within sixty days. Executive agreements are used by Presidents to make international arrangements without involving Congress. If enacted it would change the balance of power between the Presidency and Congress as well as affecting foreign policy decisions. More will be needed to transform the limited Constitutional Monarchy to a Constitutional system, but these steps will go a long way to that end.

The business-as-usual scenario would most likely result in a more powerful and less limited elected Monarch and weakened Congress, an expanded military and continuing conflicts and international isolation. Beyond that, I would suggest that the US is in a transition period similar to the ancient Roman republic’s transition to an empire.

In the 20th century, United States’ responses to conflicts and wars have transformed the national government into a Constitutional Monarchy. Sorry Ben Franklin and President James Madison, but the citizens of the 20th century forgot the wisdom of the Constitutional Convention and the difficult lessons learned about monarchy during your century. US citizens would do well to remember Ben Franklin’s comments of September 11, 1783, "There was never a good war or a bad peace".

Sources for this article

Matthew Crenson and Benjamin Ginsberg. Presidential Power: Unchecked and Unbalanced (New York, NY, London, Great Britain: W. W, Norton & Co., 2007).
CRS Report for Congress on National Emergency Powers at www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf
Search for ‘National Emergency’ at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. The Imperial Presidency (Boston, MS: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1973).
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060911/plebiscitary_presidency
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Madison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Monarchy