Hamilton wanted a monarchy

An attempt to create an elective monarchy in the United States failed. Alexander Hamilton argued in a long speech before the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that the President of the United States should be an elective monarch, ruling for "good behavior" (i.e., for life, unless impeached) and with extensive powers. Hamilton believed that elective monarchs had sufficient power domestically to resist foreign corruption, yet there was enough domestic control over their behavior to prevent tyranny at home.[3] His proposal was resoundingly voted down in favor of a four-year term with the possibility of reelection. In his later defense of the Constitution in The Federalist Papers, he often hints that a lifetime executive might be better, even as he praises the system with the four-year term.

However, looking at the political landscape today, it would appear that Hamilton's vision for America is coming to fruition. Today we have ruling families that are unstoppable with Hillary being the next President. Also, the powers of the President have increase and expanded over the years. Even though some may say Hamilton lost his fight, I say he won more than he lost in the end.

Originally posted by whodey
An attempt to create an elective monarchy in the United States failed. Alexander Hamilton argued in a long speech before the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that the President of the United States should be an elective monarch, ruling for "good behavior" (i.e., for life, unless impeached) and with extensive powers. Hamilton believed that elective monarchs h ...[text shortened]... rs. Even though some may say Hamilton lost his fight, I say he won more than he lost in the end.

Electing a monarch/king/dictator/whatever you want to call it to rule wisely and benevolently who can be removed from office by the people at the next election or by emergency recall sounds OK to me, our present system really is starting to suck. Democracy is a crappy idea when you think about it, I mean LOOK at what is allowed to vote: (and their vote counts the same as yours...something to think about before bragging up what a great concept democracy is)
YouTube

Originally posted by FishHead111
Electing a monarch/king/dictator/whatever you want to call it to rule wisely and benevolently who can be removed from office by the people at the next election or by emergency recall sounds OK to me, our present system really is starting to suck. Democracy is a crappy idea when you think about it, I mean LOOK at what is allowed to vote: (and their vote ...[text shortened]... ore bragging up what a great concept democracy is)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=325PJrTv7Es

So you would be happy with Obama as President till he dies at 100 years old? As it stands now, people who win one election are always in there for at least 2 terms, which ends up being about a decade, no matter how incompetent they are like "W".

How many dictators are ever voted out of office? LOL.

As it stands now, part of the problem is Congress. Men and women who make a career out of being a Congressman and retire with lavish retirement packages. Congress has had an approval rating of only around 10% for some time now but keep getting elected anyway.

The reason the system sucks now is that we have royal families like the Clintons and Bush's along with intractable politicians like Charley Rangel who are completely corrupt but untouchable.

Scandals used to remove Presidents like Nixon but now they are just swept under the rug. The reason things are getting so bad now is that corruption is now swept under the rug and power has been centralized so that these politicians are untouchable.

Originally posted by whodey
An attempt to create an elective monarchy in the United States failed. Alexander Hamilton argued in a long speech before the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that the President of the United States should be an elective monarch, ruling for "good behavior" (i.e., for life, unless impeached) and with extensive powers. Hamilton believed that elective monarchs h ...[text shortened]... rs. Even though some may say Hamilton lost his fight, I say he won more than he lost in the end.

😴

Originally posted by bill718
😴

I admire your restraint. I wouldn't have been that kind.

I'm thinking this is why Hamilton was left on the $10 bill and Jackson was taken off. It's because Hamilton was the Founding Father for Progs who want royal families and a centralized powerful federal government that crushes any who oppose it..

Isn't an elected monarch a contradiction?
Surely it's the definition of president...

Originally posted by shavixmir
Isn't an elected monarch a contradiction?
Surely it's the definition of president...

Actually elective monarchies were fairly common throughout history although it was generally some group of nobles who did the electing rather than the people. For instance Poland and the Holy Roman Empire had elective monarchies.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Isn't an elected monarch a contradiction?
Surely it's the definition of president...

Charles II of England was asked to return to the throne by Parliament.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Charles II of England was asked to return to the throne by Parliament.

That's more rule by consent than an elective monarchy. They chose to have a King, but didn't regard themselves as able to choose who the King was. You could also point to the Act of Settlement of 1701, but that just specified who could succeed, it didn't allow one to choose between candidates. It certainly didn't allow for an election. In English history several kings have been replaced in one way or another, without a battle, but there isn't a formal system for it.

Originally posted by whodey
I'm thinking this is why Hamilton was left on the $10 bill and Jackson was taken off. It's because Hamilton was the Founding Father for Progs who want royal families and a centralized powerful federal government that crushes any who oppose it..

Your mind is a strange thing; in another thread you are bemoaning the fact that poor people get to vote while in this one you are pretending to be opposed to monarchy and elites ruling. There really is no ideological consistency in any of your positions.

The powers given to the "Governour" in Hamilton's plan were little different from those eventually given to the President:

IV. The supreme Executive authority of the United States to be vested in a Governour to be elected to serve during good behaviour--the election to be made by Electors chosen by the people in the Election Districts aforesaid--The authorities & functions of the Executive to be as follows: to have a negative on all laws about to be passed, and the execution of all laws passed, to have the direction of war when authorized or begun; to have with the advice and approbation of the Senate the power of making all treaties; to have the sole appointment of the heads or chief officers of the departments of Finance, War and Foreign Affairs; to have the nomination of all other officers (Ambassadors to foreign Nations included) subject to the approbation or rejection of the Senate; to have the power of pardoning all offences except Treason; which he shall not pardon without the approbation of the Senate.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch8s10.html

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your mind is a strange thing; in another thread you are bemoaning the fact that poor people get to vote while in this one you are pretending to be opposed to monarchy and elites ruling. There really is no ideological consistency in any of your positions.

There is no inconsistency. What I want is for everyone to be treated the same with taxation instead of divide and conquering certain socioeconomic segments of society. If taxes need to be raised for society, then all of society should participate. It is the only way to stop the insane spending and increased taxation. Only if we all have skin in the game will the madness stop.

As for the uber rich career politicians with lavish retirement plans, look where that has gotten us. It's an utter disgrace. We need term limits and return the notion of public service back to just that, public service.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The powers given to the "Governour" in Hamilton's plan were little different from those eventually given to the President:

IV. The supreme Executive authority of the United States to be vested in a Governour to be elected to serve during good behaviour--the election to be made by Electors chosen by the people in the Election Districts aforesaid--The a ...[text shortened]... he approbation of the Senate.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch8s10.html

It is interesting that Hamilton wanted to elect "Electors" to choose the Executive. It appears he also had an aversion to direct democracy.