The United States should have the Queen as Head of State

"Rounds should have equal merit to both parties. Any facts used to back up your argument should be made in arguing rounds. If your format is for Pro to begin a basis for an argument in Round 1, and Con has to only accept Round 1, this immediately is unfair. But That first round does not help your argument at all. "It's not unfair as this is my debate, but I'm not asking for you to argue round 1, that was just my opening to this subject. "Pro has no answered any of me questions or responded correctly to any counter points I had made. " Yes, I have been answering all your questions correctly. Please read carefully. "Pro has listed three different battles of war for her example to change the current US government. I would presume that to put the Queen into power, per her examples, would be a war, or even just a battle between the US and England. Allies. "First of all, I was talking about we are continually reminded that history is fraught with examples of extraordinary monarchs and autocrats that were not besieged by special interests groups, political parties or other distracting bodies and organizations. They were honourable, dutiful patriots who had a love for their country and a zeal for their people’s prosperity. Second of all, having the Queen as Head of State wouldn't be war, nor a battle, as 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. The Royalist Tea Party has no problem facing the fact that America is a republic and, like it or not, will most likely stay that way. We can though exercise our right to promote our point of view. "Pro stated the Queen has a "cool factor" and she gives the people someone to look up to. I did not use Obama as a reference. I used the President. The President is the political figure, and leader, that we as Americans look up to. Regardless of Obama's approval ratings, the President is a prestigious position in America and among world leaders. "You said it yourself, The President is a politcal figure, and a "leader", that most Americans do not look up to as I have already proved with Obama. The Queen? Is apolitical and is highly liked in the United States of America. "As I have mentioned in my Round 2 rebuttal, separating the powers of the President could very well have the benefits to the American people. Your stats are dry powerful. "You have not mentioned anything about separating the powers of the President, nor would it make a difference if he/she is political and is both Head of State and Hate of Government, like with Obama, Bush, etc. Times have changed and people are getting sick of politics ruining this country. "But, Pro did NOT make any arguments about why the Queen should stand that post. If the President's position were to be separated, there is no reason for a foreigner to come into the US and being to have power in the government. The only way this has ever happened is war. " Yes, I did make arguments on why the Queen should be Head of State. If the President's position were to be separated, who would fill in the other position? A prime minister? Like with Russia? That hasn't really worked out well now has it? There is every reason why the Queen should be Head of State in the United States. She would have the same powers as she would with Canada, and they have been doing just fine since the the British North America Act, 1867[1]. Have they had a government shutdown yet? [2], no they have not, unlike the United States. The funny thing about this is that Australia had a government shutdown once. In the end, the Queen fired everyone in Parliament. [3] The following is a partial list of Queen Elizabeth’s Royal Prerogative Powers in Canada:[4] - 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 The Queen’s non-political (ceremonial) roles include the following: - Perform the ceremonial and official duties of Head of State - Represent Canada to the rest of the world - Provide a focus for national identity and unity - Provide stability and continuity in times of change - Recognise achievement and excellence (by means of awards, medals or orders) - Encourage public and voluntary service - Support charities and foundations and highlight their causes"The Queen's popularity makes no difference on her coming to America to have a part in government. "So you don't consider having an apolitical Head of State making a difference? You are talking about a person who served in WW2. [5] Can you name any politician who is better than the Queen? "What the Queen did on 9/11 was magical and inspiring. This moment in no way qualifies her to be a part of American government. "Yes, you are right on that, but it goes to show what an amazing Head of State she really is. Can you compare this to any politician? She would not be the "American government". You are free to read what the Commonwealth realms are, if you don't already know? [7]"Also, if the Queen were to become the Head of State, would The US President then become of the Head of Government in England as well? Or would the Queen be the one to have these Head of State powers in two separate countries while the President's power remains solely in the US? "No, the President would only be Head of Government in the United States, he/she would still be President, but would be equivalent to a Prime Minister[6]. In parliamentary systems around the globe, the head of state is separate from the head of government. In some countries, like Russia and France, the president (as head of state) is more powerful than the prime minister (who is head of government). In others, like Israel, the president serves simply as a symbol of the nation, while the prime minister runs the country. Europe’s constitutional monarchies limit their heads of royal houses to symbolic functions, while reserving that role to one family. Having a national, unifying position ostensibly standing outside the daily muck of politics provides a rallying point for all citizens and a safety valve to redirecting national passions in a non-partisan way. Such symbols, whether in a democracy, monarchy, or authoritarian state, must serve a purpose above politics, both at home and abroad. Yet that is impossible for a U. S. president who is head of his own government, putative head of his political party and invariably a competitive, partisan politician… We have no such safety valve in the United States. Our experiment in self-government has progressed to the point where the differences in our increasingly complex country are now the salient feature of public life. They are certainly not as fundamental as the questions of slavery or civil rights, but they are deep and growing deeper nonetheless. The role and size of government, individual rights to privacy, immigration, the definition of marriage and the like are all driving polarisation, not just in Washington, but in Peoria and Albuquerque and Manchester. The result is a country that is becoming shriller, more willing to demonise opponents and less united. This deep corrosion of political life is directly responsible for Americans’ growing sense of alienation… Politicians are despised as a class, with congressional approval at an astonishingly low 6 percent, according to a year-end Economist/YouGov poll. Not the courts: The Supreme Court is now viewed unfavourably by nearly half the country, being seen as increasingly partisan after its controversial 2000 election ruling and 2012 Obamacare decision. Not religion: It’s increasingly a private affair, and has become a source of growing contention between believers and often-secular elites. Only American popular culture substitutes for a sense of community, with sports and film stars looked up to as exemplars despite their often lurid and sensational antics and unreachable wealth. It is our belief that to create a true sense of trust between the governed and the government, our nation’s leader must be above the politics of the day, beholden to no special interest group, and free to do what must be done for the good of all Americans, not just the party he or she leads. "What you are talking about is infiltrating the US government with the Queen. This would be an act of war that would most likely end poorly for the British. "There would be no war, as I have stated. If anything, the US government would be more like Canada, (thank God). Sources: [1] . http://goo.gl...[2] . http://goo.gl..., . http://goo.gl...[3] . http://goo.gl...[4] . http://goo.gl...[5] . http://goo.gl...[6] . http://goo.gl...[7] . http://goo.gl...I