Monarchy and the American Constitution

www.frontporchrepublic.com...

When we search the world for traditions that provide us with a suitable model, we find something very remarkable. Namely, the American Constitution, as it was originally written and understood, is the most monarchical-democratic document in the modern world.
_____________________________________________________________________________
If it seems strange that the American Constitution is the leading candidate for a monarchical-democratic reform, it should be remembered that the founders, whatever faults they might have had, were men of a classical education. They were familiar with the Aristotelian-Scholastic tradition of a mixed constitution, and they really did try to combine the best features of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. And to some degree they succeeded. It must be remembered that at the time, there were no working models of this system; it was a theoretical idea only. The mixed constitution of the United States has provided a relatively stable regime for 229 years.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Senate was designed by the founders to fulfill the “aristocratic” function, but it never actually functioned that way. The founders were not the only ones baffled by the problem. Both Aristotle and Aquinas had recognized the value of an aristocracy, so long as it was based on virtue.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The founders thought they had solved the problem by making the Senate an appointive office, isolating it from the pressure of electoral politics. But it didn’t quite work out, since legislative appointment still made it a political choice, just at one remove; it was an indirect election. Nevertheless, I believe that a solution to the problem of the aristocracy is available with a federal system. Two steps, I believe, would tackle the problem that vexed the ancients and make the Senate an institution where an aristocratic virtue could flourish. These two steps are to make the appointment of senators a personal privilege of the governors, and take away the Senate’s legislative powers.
_____________________________________________________________________________
I said at the beginning of this series that I am a monarchist because I am a democrat (small “d”); that is, I believe governance is by consent of the governed. But this consent cannot be reduced to the fashionable passions of the moment; rather it must respect both the past and the future, and this respect is best expressed in proper aristocratic and monarchical institutions.

*****Okay now this has a lot of quoting I understand and apologize to the Mods but the piece is so long it would be impossible to try and give a truly brief explanation of it in two or three paragraphs.*****

By this point I am hoping that you have read the entire piece from John Medaille from the FrontPorchRepublic who has spent years in the business sector, and author, and is now an instructor in Theology at the University of Dallas who writes for FrontPorchRepublic and is a columnist for 'The Remnant' Newspaper.

I thought this was a very interesting conclusion of his three piece part, of which I have read all three. He argues in favor of Monarchy, how the US Constitution is basically a Monarchial-Democratic document. His argument is strong, his points are intriguing, and his interpretation of our founders is interesting.

I have to agree with him on a lot of things he has written in his three articles.

Why I am a Monarchist (pt. 1)
Monarchy and Regalism (pt. 2)
Monarchy and the American Constitution (pt. 3)

He too, like me, is a Distributist so I naturally love his work. I hope you do too.

BUMP

Hey.... Do you hear that?...












































That's the wind, kinda gusty, agreed? Reminds me of another thread blowing hot and gusty air, Can't remember which one it was, but I do remember that it was here on ATS!...

One last bump

There is some interesting observations that you have made with the problems of government. Separation of powers is very important. The requirement of virtue for the senate is a new one for me. Here in Australia there has generally been a high level of respectability for the senators. How do you define virtue?

reply to post by kwakakev


I define virtue as upholding the morals of a nation and it's people, representing actions and decisions that are both good and admiral along with strengthening qualities that are morally good.

reply to post by Misoir


Yeah, it is pretty important to help stop a government sliding of the rails. Some people do have a charisma to them that gets instantly respect, but for something like virtue it does take a while to get to know the character and values.

reply to post by Misoir


An aristocratic Senate would have to look out for the long term interests of the country over political expediency and their own personal greed. Good luck finding that type of person in politics today.

If we could find people willing to make the tough choices to fix the nation, they could fix the political hot potato issues like Social Security without fear of retribution from constituency groups or interference from lobbyists.

The problem is, with the direct election of Senators, the chances that any Senator will ever stand on principal and take on the tough issuesof the Nation are gone with the wind...

With so many corporations running wild these days is there some way to teach, measure and asses virtue? It does sound to be in short supply and would be better than the sociopath mentality that commonly rises to the top of the business world. Maybe implement programs through high schools and universities to identify potential candidates. They may not always be the brightest or most popular students, but if they can keep things stable and together it is a good skill to utilise.

Perhaps a TAXPAYER FUNDED (wow, they used tax dollars for something benevolent? Really...?) study should be done to catagorically measure the aspects of virtue so that the qualities could be given values replacing the fiat monetary system with.

Thus the greater a personal aspect of virtue becomes, the more enrichment one will personaly acquire.(I know, more hot wind - right?)

Doesn't it make sense to replace greed with virtue?

reply to post by Heyyo_yoyo

Doesn't it make sense to replace greed with virtue?

That is a very interesting proposition. It will take some time to work out the practicality, but the implications, wow. It is almost too amazing to contemplate. So instead of people competing for money, they are competing for morality? Having a world full of Ned Flanders might get a bit much okely dokely, but I know there is a lot more to it than that. So the idea is for a world where the more socially responsible rise up the economic ladder instead of who ever can get their hands on it. I can see that this has been an aim of how to run a government, with mixed results. The thought of tying character values to the economy is a new one for me, with all this technology and economic dramas going on something needs to be done.