The United States should have the Queen as Head of State

My opponent says "There are numerous reasons why establishing the Queen of England as the head of state of the United States is a bad idea. Among them, I will be discussing the issues with how the Queen is a useless figurehead (albeit with significant reserve powers), how the Queen pays little real attention to Commonwealth realms (the power mostly falling on the Governor-General instead), how the monarchy does little to improve the affairs of the United States, and how the monarchy would both violate the separation of church and state and result in bizarre governmental situations. Additionally, I'll examine the negative impact of the United States becoming a commonwealth realm - both on the states and other realms. "First of all, Anne was the last Queen of England which was in 1707 during the Act of Union. During the Act of Union in 1707 the title for the monarch of England(also included Wales), Scotland and Ireland merged as one title. After the Act of Union Anne's title was Queen of Great Britain and Ireland. It's now Queen of the United Kingdom, or Queen of the Commonwealth realms. I also would like to point out that the Queen is not useless and does pay attention to the Commonwealth realms, the Monarcy would importove the affairs of the United States, and the Monarchy wouldn't violate the separation of The Queen of The United Kingdom Great Britain and Northern Ireland has a similar role to the US President; She is head of the armed forces, She guides and advises the PM (Government), She has the power to close Parliament if she needs to, All laws have to go through her, She represents the nation and entertains foreign heads of state. The President is really just an overseer the same as the Queen as he"cannot directly introduce legislation", it is the government under him that has the power. The main difference is that a President gets directly chosen by the People, while the Queen has been trained her whole life for the job she now does. She is apolitical, and that's the best part. Now, as for the Queen giving "little real attention", according to . http://goo.gl... is an important symbolic and unifying role. As Head, The Queen personally reinforces the links by which the Commonwealth joins people together from around the world. " That's a lot right there. Affirming our core Commonwealth principles of consensus and common action, mutual respect, inclusiveness, transparency, accountability, legitimacy, and responsiveness, Reaffirming the core values and principles of the Commonwealth as declared by this Charter: 1. Democracy 2. Human rights 3. International peace and security 4. Tolerance, respect and understanding 5. Freedom of Expression 6. Separation of Powers 7. Rule of Law 8. Good Governance 9. Sustainable Development 10. Protecting the Environment 11. Access to Health, Education, Food and Shelter 12. Gender Equality 13. Importance of Young People in the Commonwealth 14. Recognition of the Needs of Small States 15. Recognition of the Needs of Vulnerable States 16. The Role of Civil Society - See more at: . http://thecommonwealth.org...; Not only that, but they affirm the role of the Commonwealth as a recognised intergovernmental champion of small states, advocating for their special needs; providing policy advice on political, economic and social development issues; and delivering technical assistance, - See more at: . http://goo.gl... As for improving the affairs of the United States, it would because she is apolitical and people are getting sick of having a political leader every few years who could careless about the people. Last but not least, the Queen is only Head of Church in England. . http://goo.gl... and . http://goo.gl... Therefore she would be Head of Church in the United States, or any other countries. My opponent says "To begin, let's discuss what a monarchy actually does in a constitutional monarchy. The monarch is a mostly ceremonial position, but retains a surprisingly large number of 'reserve powers'. The only frequently used powers the Queen has are to create secondary legislation (essentially executive orders), to appoint or remove ministers, and to grant honors (such as peerages). The monarch still has the theoretical abilities to summon and prorogue Parliament, assent to laws, appoint the PM, and pardon people, as well as the ability to declare war, control passports, and requisition civilian ships for war, but these are only used one the advice of Parliament. Additionally, the monarch is immune from any criminal or civil prosecution. [2] To put it bluntly, this is a bizarre and unneeded position, a vestige of empire that resulted from the monarch gradually ceding power. If the Queen is a figurehead, why does she retain such powers? Further, the Queen doesn't even use these powers in Commonwealth realms - she instead delegates it to the Governor-General. [3] The Queen only rarely visits other countries - she's only visited Canada, the most populous Commonwealth realm, three times since 2000. [4] Thus the Queen's true focus isn't on even the larger realms, but rather her country of birth - England - and even the supposed 'ceremonial' role the Queen provides is essentially limited to infrequent visits. The United States, therefore, would gain virtually nothing from making the Queen head of state - instead, it would cede a lot of power (even theoretical power) to a foreign monarch who pays only nominal attention to the affairs outside of her home country. "The Queen has more powers actually, you can read them on my website at: . http://goo.gl... These powers are good to prevent modern day government abuse, which is understandable. As for the Royals visiting other Commonwealth realms, they do every few years. And the last visit in Canada was in 2010. . http://goo.gl... The Queen does do a lot, and does pay attention to affairs outside of her home country. In fact, you can read what the Queen does. . http://goo.gl..., . http://goo.gl..., you can even read what the Queen still does for Canada: . http://goo.gl... So here's the thing, you can't say the United States wouldn't gain anything from this, because it our could gain a lot from having an apolitical head of state who really cares, for years and years and years and more years to come. My opponent says "Next, we need to examine the inevitable conflicts on interest that would arise from making the Queen head of state. To begin with, the Queen is the head of the Church of England - the state religion of England. [5] While it is not concerning for minor religious leaders like priests, rabbis, or clerics to run for elective office (whose constituency can then decide whether or not a significant conflict of interest exists), the Queen is an unappointed, lifetime official. Her position as the head of a church is concerning and places a clear conflict of interest with the Constitution's ban on federal establishment of religion. [6] Even if we put that aside, the Queen's simultaneous status as head of state of over 16 different countries results in diplomatic insanity. Take, for example, World War II, where King George VI, as monarch of both the United Kingdom (at war with Germany) and dominions South Africa and Ireland (at peace with Germany) was thus simultaneously at war and at peace with Germany. [7] The nominal neutrality offered by the Queen being the head of state is thus a fiction, at least in this case, as the reality of war is that the position of the Queen's home country (the United Kingdom) is the true position of the Queen - not the position of any other country. "The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution, the argument runs, the document provides for merger of the two. " You are free to read more about this. . http://goo.gl... Now, according to Wikipedia, "The monarch is nominally the supreme governor of each of the Commonwealth realms, charged with issuing executive orders, commanding the military forces, and creating and administering laws. However, each country now operates under the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy and the concept of responsible government, meaning that the monarch only exercises her powers on the advice of her Crown ministers, who are usually drawn from, and thus responsible to, the elected chamber of the relevant parliament. In some realms, such as Papua New Guinea, these conventions are codified in constitutional law. " . http://goo.gl...My opponent says "Finally, let's look at what the US becoming a commonwealth realm would mean for other commonwealth realms. The commonwealth realms (including the UK) have a collective total of 135.27 million people. [8] In comparison, the US has a population of 318.3 million people - in comparison to the most populous realms, that is over 5 times more than the UK (62 million), 9 times as many as Canada (34 million), and nearly 14 times as many as Australia. [9] That's not even accounting the remaining commonwealth realms, of which only three (Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, and Jamaica) have over 600,000 citizens. [8] Because the US would be the most populous realm (and the most powerful country in the world), its interests would basically overwhelm the interests of the other realms, the vast majority of which are tiny countries. The voice of the states would easily outweigh the voice of all the others, even when combined. "Population is just a number, Reason, encouragement, and mutual help, being part of a shared family, and like siblings looking out for each others interests are what makes the Commonwealth work. It's true that the USA may have to understand that in the Commonwealth economic strength and population size and military capacity are all part of the picture, but in the end everything would work out as the United States would continue to learn and understand.