French monarchy and Catholic Traditionalism
#41
(12-27-2010, 01:29 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote: I agree.  I think America would be best off with sovereign states that were well-ordered Republics observing God's moral laws.  These states could continue to co-exist as the United States (reduced entirely to a free trade/travel agreement and mutual defense agreement) or as a number of confederacies.  It would be logical I think for America to consist of a Northeast confederacy, a Southeast confederacy, a midwest confederacy, the West Coast, and an independent Alaska and Hawaii. 
I actually like this idea, before I thought a "five nation-state solution", that is USA breaks up into smaller but still large countries, was a good idea - but I like your "European Union" model, never liked the idea of confederation - too weak for a national government - but having a giant free trade zone and unified nato type defense would be good methinks

personally i like the idea of strong constitutional monarchy - like during late 1700s-1800s victorian england - you get consistent leadership under non-political monarch and their political ministers but checked, difference is advantage of monarch being a nonpolitical figure that unifies the country. of course USA being founded on anti-monarchism its silly to think monarchy with the fancy titles will ever happen, but looking at our president he's (and his predecessors) treated better than any king or emperor before them, since like pharaoh times imo. And the respect you have to give them and their office - more i think of it more they are literally monarchs

in old days when we were actually what's in the constitution, you could go visit the president if you were in DC and wanted to, nowadays US presidents are uberceasars - ruling a country larger than the roman empire with massive military under direct command complete with literal power to destroy the world and near deification by the public
Reply
#42
(12-27-2010, 01:45 PM)Scythian Wrote: personally i like the idea of strong constitutional monarchy - like during late 1700s-1800s victorian england - you get consistent leadership under non-political monarch and their political ministers but checked, difference is advantage of monarch being a nonpolitical figure that unifies the country.

I would not take England, especially during that time, to be any sort of thing that is laudable.

It was a genocidal, heretical and entirely worldly.
Reply
#43
(12-27-2010, 01:45 PM)Scythian Wrote:
(12-27-2010, 01:29 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote: I agree.  I think America would be best off with sovereign states that were well-ordered Republics observing God's moral laws.  These states could continue to co-exist as the United States (reduced entirely to a free trade/travel agreement and mutual defense agreement) or as a number of confederacies.  It would be logical I think for America to consist of a Northeast confederacy, a Southeast confederacy, a midwest confederacy, the West Coast, and an independent Alaska and Hawaii. 
I actually like this idea, before I thought a "five nation-state solution", that is USA breaks up into smaller but still large countries, was a good idea - but I like your "European Union" model, never liked the idea of confederation - too weak for a national government - but having a giant free trade zone and unified nato type defense would be good methinks

personally i like the idea of strong constitutional monarchy - like during late 1700s-1800s victorian england - you get consistent leadership under non-political monarch and their political ministers but checked, difference is advantage of monarch being a nonpolitical figure that unifies the country. of course USA being founded on anti-monarchism its silly to think monarchy with the fancy titles will ever happen, but looking at our president he's (and his predecessors) treated better than any king or emperor before them, since like pharaoh times imo. And the respect you have to give them and their office - more i think of it more they are literally monarchs

in old days when we were actually what's in the constitution, you could go visit the president if you were in DC and wanted to, nowadays US presidents are uberceasars - ruling a country larger than the roman empire with massive military under direct command complete with literal power to destroy the world and near deification by the public

I think the Federalists had an almost royalist view of the Presidency. 

(contemporary Catholic author) John Medaille, I believe, suggested that the Presidency would be more monarchical if the President were elected for a single 10-year term.  This would make the President less political and he would have no re-election campaign to run or worry about. 

I agree with you also that the President of the US has far too much power. 
Reply
#44
(12-27-2010, 01:55 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(12-27-2010, 01:45 PM)Scythian Wrote: personally i like the idea of strong constitutional monarchy - like during late 1700s-1800s victorian england - you get consistent leadership under non-political monarch and their political ministers but checked, difference is advantage of monarch being a nonpolitical figure that unifies the country.

I would not take England, especially during that time, to be any sort of thing that is laudable.

It was a genocidal, heretical and entirely worldly.

That seems like a rather one-sided view of Britain.  On the natural level, I think there were many laudable things about Britain.  Also, during the French Revolution, Britain stood for order and sanity in Europe and defeated the maniac Napoleon. 

I am a bit of an Anglophile, I confess.
Reply
#45
(12-27-2010, 01:55 PM)Rosarium Wrote: I would not take England, especially during that time, to be any sort of thing that is laudable.

It was a genocidal, heretical and entirely worldly.
meh, Visigoths would say same thing about the Roman Empire, all governments, save the old testament state and big maybe the latter HRE, are man made and men by nature sin so.. dosent bother me

seeing how my grandmother was exclusively of English ancestry i have no axe to grind against England (like I do against Russia) except against those damn chavs on call of duty who consistently piss me off and make me want to bomb the UK with a real uav

more of a francophile here though lol, but like england and the coolness of the monarchy and the neat traditions of the country nonetheless
Reply
#46
(12-27-2010, 02:03 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote: I think the Federalists had an almost royalist view of the Presidency.  John Medaille, I believe, suggested that the Presidency would be more monarchical if the President were elected for a single 10-year term.

Tha's mild compared to Alexander Hamilton's views. Hamilton made a proposal at the Constitutional Convention that the President and the senators ought to be elected for life. It wasn't even federalist; he proposed getting rid of state sovereignty altogether. The Convention rejected it out of hand since it was based on the British form of government.
Reply
#47
It wasn't that long ago, concerned citizens could get into see a Senator. Organizers like Ralph Nader put an end to that with his pestering, which made him a political force, and removed the common citizen's power, with it's fulfillment in Obama the Organizer. Subsidiarity is the answer, and breaking it up to the lowest common denominator. Years ago Chicago under da Mayor Richard Daley the First, ran Chicago like a republic with a Doge.If you knew someone, anyone, you could get to see the right guy. This is how the Mafia ran, too. It is old Italian city state politics, and if worked at to keep it clean, it works like a charm. The problem came when America kicked God to the curb, in fact that is always the problem. The news in those days covered the Mayor and other politicos going to Mass, or the Stations of the Cross. It sounds patronizing, but no matter what you thought of him or the Church he set an example for all. All of the influential Italian families which ran those city states at minimum went through the motions of following the Faith. The absence of God is the absence of morals, which is precisely what is wrong today. It's not the form of government which will save us but a return to Faith, and observance of the 10 commandments.
tim
Reply
#48
well said !!!
Reply
#49
(12-27-2010, 02:17 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(12-27-2010, 02:03 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote: I think the Federalists had an almost royalist view of the Presidency.  John Medaille, I believe, suggested that the Presidency would be more monarchical if the President were elected for a single 10-year term.

Tha's mild compared to Alexander Hamilton's views. Hamilton made a proposal at the Constitutional Convention that the President and the senators ought to be elected for life. It wasn't even federalist; he proposed getting rid of state sovereignty altogether. The Convention rejected it out of hand since it was based on the British form of government.

I've modified my earlier post because I realized that it reads as though John Medaille was an early Federalist whereas he is a contemporary writer.  I should have separated those thoughts with a paragraph.

You are correct about Hamilton of course.  Many of the Federalists basically wanted to reproduced the British system in America.  In that case, the American Revolution was no Revolution at all but simply an act of secession within the British polity.
Reply
#50
(12-27-2010, 02:06 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote:
(12-27-2010, 01:55 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(12-27-2010, 01:45 PM)Scythian Wrote: personally i like the idea of strong constitutional monarchy - like during late 1700s-1800s victorian england - you get consistent leadership under non-political monarch and their political ministers but checked, difference is advantage of monarch being a nonpolitical figure that unifies the country.

I would not take England, especially during that time, to be any sort of thing that is laudable.

It was a genocidal, heretical and entirely worldly.

That seems like a rather one-sided view of Britain.  On the natural level, I think there were many laudable things about Britain.  Also, during the French Revolution, Britain stood for order and sanity in Europe and defeated the maniac Napoleon. 

I am a bit of an Anglophile, I confess.

...it is a true view of Britain. It has anti-Church policies as national policies, especially concerning the monarchy and government. It used to be a Catholic nation, until the monarchy decided it should be otherwise. It has actively sought to destroy the Church. It has also sought to destroy an entire nation.

This isn't just about history. It is about now. The current monarchy stands on the shoulders of murderers and heretics and they continue the traditions of them.

Yes, on a natural level, there laudable things, such as its effectiveness in destroying nations and people and attacking the Church. It was remarkably efficient, but by the grace of God it could not succeed.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)