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

"If pro is not arguing for the submission of American sovereignty then I am confused to what pro is arguing. Plus the title of this debate suggests otherwise. "British Monarchy: The United States should have [THE] Queen as Head of State"; THE queen not a queen. the only successful nation that has a queen still in the tabloids is the UK. Every other country with any kind of royalty are called dictatorships or some other authoritarian system. I don't know about anyone else but I would rather not go there. The United states is not a Constitutional Monarchy, you can't just throw a queen in there and expect everything to be ok that is ludicrous."First of all, we are arguing that the Queen should be Head of State, not the United States joining the United Kingdom. Second of all, the United Kingdom is not the only country with a Queen, I have already proven that constitutional monarchies are more democratic than republics[1], but now let's analyse this: A quarter of the world’s countries are Constitutional Monarchies[2], and that is the better quarter by a long way. In every part of the world Constitutional Monarchy is better than any other system of government, especially Republics. Look at Europe. Britain has 3 and a half centuries of stable democracy. And look at the other long lasting, respectable democracies like the Netherlands and Norway and Sweden and Denmark and Belgium and Luxembourg and Spain (a fairly recent Constitutional Monarchy). Compare that with, say, Germany. Germany has only been a Republic for 90 years and has already had the single most evil, despotic, tyrannical military dictator the world has ever seen. Hitler became Head Of State aswell as being the leader of Parliament, and that made him an irremovable dictator, something that can’t happen in a Constitutional Monarchy. Look at the rest of the world too. What’s a better democracy, Japan or the People’s Republic Of China, under Hu Jintao, a one party communist regime? Jordan or the Republic of Iran under Mahmoud Ahmedinejad? Morrocco or any African Republic like Zimbabwe, under Mugabe? Thailand or the Republic of Vietnam? Canada, or any other North or South American country? In every single part of the world Constitutional Monarchy is better in terms of political stability and accountability. Also, every year the UN publishes a list of the best countries to live in the world based on the quality of life of the citizens. And every year, despite the fact that there are more Republics in the world, the top 20 are always mostly Constitutional Monarchies, and the top 10 are always mostly Constitutional Monarchies, and the top of the list is always a Constitutional Monarchy. Evidently having a permanent, apolitical Head Of State is a billion times better than having a politician as Head Of State. "There is no such thing as a hereditary right to rule in the US. One of the reasons we revolted against Great Britain is to get away from that. Plus my opponent seems to ignore the fact that the queen HAS NO EXECUTIVE POWER. That power belongs to the prime minister. Even the UK learned the mistakes of having a monarch in power. Those types of ruler ships always lead to a totalitarian type of system."You are right, there is no hereditary right to rule in the US, yet. But as for the King, King George III was not a tyrant. He was a constitutional monarch under the terms of the Act of Settlement of 1701 and had no authority to influence foreign policy. It was the intransigence of Lord North, prime minister, that led to war with the colonists. At that time, the American colonists were demanding a level of representation that did not exist in England. The English experience of a wider suffrage had collapsed into the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell and his military regime, Democracy as demanded by the rebels was unknown in Europe and Lord North couldn't imagine how such a governmental system would work. He wasn't alone, although there were a few English parliamentarians who were pressing for wider suffrage, and it came 50 years later. The idea of "We the people..." was as alien to most politicians at the time as we would view "We the rich and famous..." now. Quite simply, not a basis for good government in a fair and rational society (except in USA perhaps, where rich and famous seem to be the main criteria for election to high office since the time of Theodore Roosevelt). George III had very little interest in politics and no powers over fiscal or military policies. He believed his advisors because that's what the constitution demanded of him. He did ask Lord North if there wasn't perhaps a better way and was told that the American rebellion was the beginning of an anti-monarchist revolution. This was the 18th century equivalent of "weapons of mass destruction" and equally a cynical lie, but it stoked the fears of most people at the time and gave Lord North the mandate he required. All empires collapse because the burden of administration eventually becomes too great for the home country. This was the case with the empires of the Greeks, Romans, Vikings, Moghuls, Spanish and then British. There may be a moral case against empire, but the administrative case seems to be overwhelming. There is a lesson here, perhaps, for the USA as it grows its empire into other continents. There can be no doubt that the English and British colonies in North America, Africa, India and Australasia would eventually have become independent without bloodshed, if British governments had been prepared to sense the "real-politik" in time. But governments and politicians don't behave like that, do they? All the evidence is that George III was a kindly and cultured rennaisance gentleman. Everyone who met him liked him, even if they disagreed with the existence of the Hanoverian monarchy in England. His father George II had ridden into battle at Dettingen in 1743, but George III had no interest in war or politics. He wanted to be loved as the father of the nation and, by and large, that's how he was perceived. Even in the American colonies, blame for the military intervention didn't fall on King George until a new constitution needed to be written. George III was not mad. He suffered an inheritied metabolic disease of the liver, that resulted in a chemical imbalance in his brain. Periodically, he lost control of his thoughts and actions. The condition is treatable today with 100 per cent recovery but George is remembered by Americans as "mad King George" because it suits their actions in forming a republic. There were much better reasons to throw off the British yoke but the king's apparent madness was (is) easier to quote as explanation. It is interesting that the intellectually-reduced American philosophy of representative government, as later improved and developed by the Constitution writers, has been quoted and admired by other political thinkers including Marat, Robespierre and Danton, Napoleon Bonaparte, Proudhon, Engels, Marx, Trotsky and Hitler. All of these came to offer explanations and justifications for tyranny based on early colonial dissatisfactions, which makes you think. In all of this, George III was an irrelevance but a thoroughly nice and gentle human being, struggling with a serious illness, of which his advisors and critics took advantage. "The US doesn't need a symbol, we have our own. It is called our flag. The American flag is arguably one of the most powerful symbols on the planet. We also have our own representative body, it's called the house and the Senate. Once again we are not the UK therefore it makes no sense to adopt a monarch unless we are merging with the UK. My opponent seems to base their arguments on grounds of desire rather than logic and practicality. The very notion of a Monarchy is an insult to America in not only what it stands for but the millions who have given their lives to make what America is today. If you want to live under the guise of a monarch then I would suggest you move to the UK; But since the Queen is simply a figurehead and holds the most influence on America through the tabloids it would be insane to place her or any queen as the head of state. Running the most powerful nation on the planet is not a soap opera or a tabloid story. There is a very legitimate reason the Queen holds no real power and to force that into the US government would not only cause dissension but possibly a civil war. If America goes down so does the rest of the planet as we are the largest economy. Why would you wreck millions of lives and the state of the planet for a symbol?"Unfortunately, a flag is not going to prevent the failing superpower[3] from collapsing[4] due to political instability. The Monarchy is not an insult to America, as I have already proved that Americans love the Monarchy, and that the Queen is more popular than Obama. And I'm sure if the Founding Fathers were still alive today, they would see I'm right, and demand for it to be fixed. Please, do not insult me and suggest I should move to the UK. The Queen is more than a figurehead[5]. We are the Royalist Tea Party; a legally registered non-profit U.S. political party which aims to lawfully amend the Constitution to appoint the British constitutional monarchy to the United States of America. We have a lawful plan to realise the monarchy, and one that is not predicated on winning over a sleeping majority."If America goes down so does the rest of the planet as we are the largest economy."01. There's not going to be a war, nor will the American economy go down during a government change. 02. Countries do not rely on America. 03. The 10 largest economies in the world is not just the United States: http://goo.gl...Sources:[1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...[3] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl...[4] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl...[5] http://goo.gl...Additionally, you can read what the Queen's powers are on our website: http://goo.gl...