Royal Baby in UK

[Brian]

Oh, so this is why people are still talking about the royal baby.

[Florestan]

No, they'd agree completely.  All three wanted even more power than they had (all presidents do), and all three were hampered by their opponents.  Even the mighty FDR became politically weaker the longer he was in office.  The war was great for him, because he got to act with complete freedom in executing the war.  But he could not do a thing about some domestic political and social issues (eg, race related issues), and he knew it.  Lincoln was under pressure from the Radical Republicans to do more than he wanted, and constantly at odds with the Northern Democrats.  Suspending habeus corpus was a great abuse of power, sure, but even so he never achieved European-style dictatorial power.  Bush, well, despite his reputation as a doofus under the control of Cheney, he knew how to get the Democrats to vote for some of what he wanted, at least in the first term, though his second term was a bust from a policy perspective.  Presidential power, outside the realm of using the military overseas, is limited, and in the second term, it withers away.  This arises primarily from one thing, of course: it is Congress that controls the purse.

You are completely missing my point because you primarily focus on wartime presidents. Yes, as commander in chief the president has considerable powers (though still limited as Todd points out), and as president of the most powerful country those powers are not insignificant. But you forget that by the terms of the constitution, the federal government only has authority over foreign affaris, taxation and interstate commerce. Compared to almost every other government on earth, democratic or otherwise, that is a laughably limited scope (it's a joke, really, compared to the nearly unchecked and unlimited power of many of the South American heads of state with which you were comparing the US presidency). And that is the reason why to many outsiders the US government often seems rather inept in domestic affairs, because most outsiders don't realize how limited those powers are. And even then, as Todd points out, the president is constrained by the courts and the legislature.

Gentlemen,

Upon reading your posts one would think that the President of the USA is only slightly less ceremonial and more powerful than the Queen of England...

But what do I know? You are US citizens and I am not, so I trust you completely and stand corrected.

But then again, I can't help asking: if this is so, then what was all the fuss about Obama's election? Putting aside his inauguration ceremony, which in terms of pomp and popular adulation far surpassed any similar royal ceremony in Europe (recently The Netherlands and Belgium witnessed a change of the monarch but I defy you to find any similarity with Obama's "presidential crowning"), from your comments two things can be inferred with certainty: (1) that Barack Obama was a shameless liar. Change we can believe in! Really? According to you, gentlemen, effecting any of the changes he campaigned for is well without the scope of his powers, so he knowingly promised to do things he knew only too well he could not do; (2) those who enthusiastically voted for him on account of those presumable changes were complete ignoramuses, because they didn't even know how the constitution of their own country operates and that their president is essentially powerless to effect any change except in what concerns foreign affairs, taxation and interstate commerce --- things that rule out completely any Obamacare plan...

I'm aware of all that. I just don't think that has anything to do with monarchy per se. Look for instance at Germany, where the office of the federal president is likewise almost purely ceremonial and also consists of mostly rubber-stamping legislation. There it has happened that the legislature wanted to do something obnoxious and the president put his foot down and refused to sign, sending them back to the drawing board. But you don't need a subsidized hereditary luxury caste to achieve that result. 

What you ignore, either unwillingly or on purpose, is that not every country is Germany and that what works wonders somewhere might spell disaster elsewhere. Spain's attempt of 1874-75 to implement a cantonal system like that which Switzerland knew peacefully for 600 years ended in a bloody failure: civil war(s) and revolution(s) taking place simultaneously; only the manu militari restoration of monarchy saved the country from complete disintegration. If you think that there is one, single, universal, political system suited for each and every country under the sun, suit yourself: the reality gives you a big lie.

EDIT: Is this guy a lunatic, yes or no?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lew-rockwell/down-with-the-presidency/

[Karl Henning]

Gentlemen,

Upon reading your posts one would think that the President of the USA is only slightly less ceremonial and more powerful than the Queen of England...

Something in that; and the Fathers would be appalled.

[Todd]

Upon reading your posts one would think that the President of the USA is only slightly less ceremonial and more powerful than the Queen of England...

A rather nonsensical, hyperbolic response, I'd say.  I mean, come on, I even mentioned Lincoln's suspense of habeus corpus.  I was replying to your prior rather nonsensical, hyperbolic post that the three leaders you mentioned would laugh at the idea that they are hemmed in.  They would not.

[Florestan]

A rather nonsensical, hyperbolic response, I'd say.  I mean, come on, I even mentioned Lincoln's suspense of habeus corpus.  I was replying to your prior rather nonsensical, hyperbolic post that the three leaders you mentioned would laugh at the idea that they are hemmed in.  They would not.

Interestingly enough, you chose to reply to a hyperbole but you ignored the factual part of my comment... 

[Todd]

Interestingly enough, you chose to reply to a hyperbole but you ignored the factual part of my comment...

You mean the partly factual part?  Of course Obama was and is a shameless liar.  He's a politician, and he was running for office.  Presidents do not have the power to change much of anything by simply issuing orders and giving pretty speeches, and while they can and do influence legislation, what Congress ultimately passes is quite often substantially different from what presidents advocate, which is an good thing.

I'm not quite sure what ACA has to do with anything as SCOTUS settled the issue as to its constitutionality - for even legislation pushed hard by presidents can be struck down here, and that happens on occasion.  In this case, it stood, though the Obama Administration is backing off the initial timelines in enforcement, in part because presidents (and Congress) are, in fact, powerless to make great institutional changes on a whim, and the changes that will be wrought by ACA are very far reaching.  Knowing bureaucratic inertia, which exists in the private and public spheres equally, and which is germane here, parts of the law will simply fade away and some will be enforced and some enforced vigorously, and some will be changed by practice to be something other than was originally intended.  If the president was as powerful as you assert, the legislation would have been rammed through in the first hundred days, and enforcement would have began within a year.  But Obama did not have FDR's congressional support (thank goodness!), and even FDR's programs started being scaled back and struck down only a few years in.  Presidents, even war presidents, have limited power.

[Brian]

A rather nonsensical, hyperbolic response, I'd say.  I mean, come on, I even mentioned Lincoln's suspense of habeus corpus.  I was replying to your prior rather nonsensical, hyperbolic post that the three leaders you mentioned would laugh at the idea that they are hemmed in.  They would not.

Prince Charles is listening to your voicemails!

[Florestan]

Of course Obama was and is a shameless liar.

Thanks for confirming my opinion. 

Presidents do not have the power to change much of anything by simply issuing orders and giving pretty speeches, and while they can and do influence legislation, what Congress ultimately passes is quite often substantially different from what presidents advocate, which is an good thing.

A good thing it is, I agree. What do you think, though, about Rockwell's article? Is there any truth in it, or just hyperbole? 

[Todd]

Prince Charles is listening to your voicemails!

Better stop speaking in a mock Cockney accent, then.  I don't want HRH to come and give me a good shellacking.

Thanks for confirming my opinion.

I'll make a bold prediction: The next President of the United States of America will be a shameless liar.

A good thing it is, I agree. What do you think, though, about Rockwell's article? Is there any truth in it, or just hyperbole?

It's hyperbole, start to finish.  (I only made it through a few paragraphs.)  I have no problem with social libertarian thinking, and more traditional non-interventionist foreign policy thinking, but potboiler speeches don't really do much for me.

[Florestan]

I'll make a bold prediction: The next President of the United States of America will be a shameless liar.

I concur. So will be the next President of Romania.

It's hyperbole, start to finish.  (I only made it through a few paragraphs.)  I have no problem with social libertarian thinking, and more traditional non-interventionist foreign policy thinking, but potboiler speeches don't really do much for me.

Thanks again, duly noted.

What about the Obama "coronation" as opposed to the virtually unnoticed transition from Beatrix to Willem Alexander (The Netherlands), and from Albert to Philippe (Belgium)?

[springrite]

The Royal Baby should be ashamed of all the trouble his birth is causing...

[Todd]

What about the Obama "coronation" as opposed to the virtually unnoticed transition from Beatrix to Willem Alexander (The Netherlands), and from Albert to Philippe (Belgium)?

Presidential inaugurations have been overdone from time-to-time - even the one Populist President, Jackson, had a big one - though now it seems a permanent fixture.  Obama's was a grand old party, and a handy way to pay back some political allies, supporters, and fund raisers.  But even Obama is finding out that second terms are very unkind.

[Florestan]

The Royal Baby should be ashamed of all the trouble his birth is causing...

What trouble? The transition of the royal power in the UK will be as smooth as it ever was in the last 200 years. Occasional GMG skirmishes can hardly qualify as such... 

[Florestan]

Presidential inaugurations have been overdone from time-to-time - even the one Populist President, Jackson, had a big one - though now it seems a permanent fixture.  Obama's was a grand old party, and a handy way to pay back some political allies, supporters, and fund raisers.

The difference between him and a contemporary European monarch being?... (Aside from the fact that a contemporary European monarch
doesn't need to pay back any political allies, supporters and fund raisers) 

But even Obama is finding out that second terms are very unkind.

A US President might have a second term, but a Queen / King of UK surely won't... 

[Brian]

Obama's was a grand old party

A knife-twisting double-entendre.

[Florestan]

A knife-twisting double-entendre.

You beat me to it.

Superbly done, Todd! 

[Todd]

The difference between him and a contemporary European monarch being?...

1.) He was elected.

2.) He will be gone in January 2017.

[Florestan]

1.) He was elected.

Big deal! 

2.) He will be gone in January 2017.

To be replaced with another of the same stock. 

No substantial difference, save that the Queen of England is not a shameless liar... 

[Todd]

Big deal!

Now you get it.

No substantial difference, save that the Queen of England is not a shameless liar...

I'm not so sure.

[Florestan]

Now you get it.

There are two ways of looking at the question:

1. Who is to exercise the power? Well, those whom the majority of the voters gets elected.

2. No matter who exercise the power (if it be president or queen/king is all a matter of tradition and history), it is to be limited.

Needless to say, I subscribe to the 2nd one. I'd rather be living under a powerless monarch than under a powerless US President.