British Monarchy: The United States should have the Queen as Head of State

Here is the list of the hypothetical queens powers according to my opponents source The following is a partial list of Queen Elizabeth"s Royal Prerogative Powers in Canada: - The Queen alone, as Head of the Armed Forces, may declare war or peace - The Queen alone may conclude treaties - The Queen (as commander-in-chief) may choose and appoint officers of all ranks - The Queen may convoke, adjourn, remove, and dissolve Parliament - The Queen may appoint a Prime Minister of her own choosing - The Queen may dismiss the Prime Minister and his Government - The Queen can choose and appoint all judges, councillors, officers of state, etc. - The Queen may initiate criminal proceedings, and she alone can bestow a pardon - The Queen may refuse the Royal Assent - The Queen may refuse to dissolve Parliament when requested by the Prime Minister - The Queen can choose and appoint all Archbishops, Bishops, and ecclesiastical dignitaries - The Queen may exercise the refusal of the "Queen"s Consent" (direct Monarchical assent is required for a bill affecting the prerogative, hereditary revenues or the personal property or interests of the Crown to be heard in Parliament). - Since the Sovereign is "first in honour, dignity and in power"and the seat and fountain of all three," the Queen may bestow all public honours, including creating peerages or bestowing Orders of Chivalry http://royalistpartyusa.tk... Here is the Powers of the President 1. Chief of state 2. Chief Executive 3. Chief Diplomat 4. Commander-In-Chief 5. Chief Legislator 6. Chief of Party 7. Chief Guardian of the Economy ( A breakdown of each duty is in the link) http://www.scholastic.com... -Every role this Queen would hold is already covered by the President or congress, a queen is unnecessary and would essentially replace the President. Not only would she replace the president but "a Queen who is: an impartial symbolic Head of State above politics". No one in the US is above politics. The constitution is the supreme authority of the land not the president and not your queen. The only reason the President is subject to partisanship is because he is elected. A political party is a representation of American interests. There are hundreds of parties (yours included). The notion of this queen being in power indefinitely is preposterous and is against the very ethics and institutions of the American government. The reason we have term limits is to prevent the abuse of power. When someone is in executive office for life they will abuse that power. That is why the queen in any modern Constitutional Monarchy has no executive power. Our government is set up on a three tier system. American Government Executive- Enforces laws Legislative- Makes laws Judicial- Interprets laws -This three tier system is called checks and balances which makes sure that no one or branch gets too much power. Your idea of a queen goes against that. Once again I state we are not a Constitutional Monarchy. Our government nor our constitution is designed for a queen. The only role of a queen is symbolism. The President is the equivalent in the United states. So in order to have your queen you would have to overthrow the current government=war, and change the Constitution=war. In the event of a civil war the economy would crumble and so would the worlds. Many countries do rely on America for both defense and economic prosperity (The World). What part of we have the largest economy is not clear? All the evidence to this very realistic truth is in the links of my argument in the opening round. My opponent has provided a vague chart and the majority of non Constitutional Monarchies actually score higher than Constitutional Monarchies(According to her chart).The EU is not stable in itself and has been on the verge of collapse many times. No government is perfect. Even your Constitutional Monarchy. Plus the queen in America is seen as a celebrity. There are many of those but that doesn't mean they should run our country. In many ways the President himself is a celebrity, he is the most powerful man on the planet. Pro has failed to provide any evidence to what steps would be needed to change the government without a war. Just putting the Queen as head of state won't work. That is not how it works. And to give the queen the power to stop the divisions in American politics you would have to give her absolute power which then it becomes a dictatorship. Otherwise you are going to have the same problems we are having now. It's not the government that is the problem it is the people. " that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people"--The Gettysburg Address A queen is not going to magically fix our problems or fix our problems at all. Our societal structure does not allow for a queen or king to exist. Trying to implement one would shatter every foundation in this country and you would bring it to the ground. Sorry but that's how the government works. So the notion is illogical and irrational. Now on my opponents claim that a Constitutional Monarchy is better (which is an opinion which she holds) -In the link is a list of every country and their government system. If you notice the majority of Constitutional monarchies are your poorest and smallest countries. The reason why the standard of living is better in the richer countries is simply because they are smaller. If you note that every superpower on earth is not a Constitutional monarchy. http://en.wikipedia.org... -Here is a list of the top ten countries by GDP per capita http://www.whichcountry.co... -Here is a list of the top ten countries by GDP http://www.mapsofworld.com... -The average life expectancy in the US for both Genders is 78.84. while my opponents is quoted "an average life expectancy of 75.6. [All other countries have an average GDP per capita of $12,518.76 and an average life expectancy of 68.3.] " Note that the end of the excerpt from my opponents argument is misleading by a little over a decade. So in terms of life expectancy the US is better. http://www.data360.org... -The GDP per capita in the US is $52,800 (2013 est.). Note that these numbers do conflict with another set I stated but both are from the same source and in either case the GDP well exceeds my opponents numbers as quoted ""Constitutional monarchies have an average GDP per capita of $29,106.71". Also note another misleading stat by my opponent "All other countries have an average GDP per capita of $12,518.76". So in terms of GDP per capita the US also well exceeds my opponents numbers. https://www.cia.gov... -Just to prove that i'm not cherry picking her argument here is the whole paragraph "Constitutional monarchies have an average GDP per capita of $29,106.71 and an average life expectancy of 75.6. All other countries have an average GDP per capita of $12,518.76 and an average life expectancy of 68.3. Point: constitutional monarchies. Of course, this doesn't demonstrate that having a constitutional monarchy makes countries richer, only that it's totally possible to both be a healthy, rich country and be a constitutional monarchy." (This is right below her first graph in the opening round) -May I also quote another excerpt "According to Simon Upton, New Zealand Environment Minister, March 1994, he says: "The public are sick and tired of politics, they are sick and tired of the machinations of elected office in a media age, and I think it"s quite good having a Head of State that"s completely to one side of that." -Not only was this said a decade ago (very different time), but since when has a leader of a tiny island nation had any valid opinion or expertise on a country well over 100 times his countries size? -Also may I quote "There is also a huge "coolness" factor.[6] The Queen is someone they can all look up to, and take pride in.[7]" -Not only are my opponents stats vague and misleading but she also claims a reason the US should adopt a Monarchy is because "There is also a huge "coolness" factor.". Coolness factor? This statement is based on opinion and holds no validity as to why the US should adopt a Monarchy. -The only valid argument my opponent makes is that a Constitutional monarchy is more democratic. That may be true but the US is not a true Democracy either. We are a Federal Democracy. Therefore the institutions of a Constitutional Monarchy are irrelevant. - In conclusion my opponent has made False and misleading claims that a Constitutional Democracy on average is better than the US in both life expectancy and GDP per capita. She makes irrelevant statements about the levels of democracy in two very different types of government, and she argues because she thinks it's "cool" that we should adopt a Monarchy which is ludicrous.