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

Rebuttal "Con is under the impression that we are debating if the United States should join the United Kingdom. This is not the case. All arguments are extended. This debate, as the tittle states:...."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. "A constitutional monarchy is a form of government established under a constitutional system which acknowledges an hereditary or elected monarch 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. Here is a definition of Totalitarian "of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life." http://dictionary.reference.com... My opponent even ignores the parameters set in the very source they used and only provided a fraction of the whole story. "A constitutional monarchy is a form of government established under a constitutional system which acknowledges an hereditary or elected monarch as head of state). As in most republics, a constitutional monarchy's executive authority is vested in the head of state." "Today constitutional monarchy is almost always combined with representative democracy, and represents (as a theory of civics) a compromise between total trust in the electorate, and in well-bred and well-trained monarchs raised for the role from birth. [Though the king or queen may be regarded as the government's symbolic head], [it is the Prime Minister who actually governs the country.]" http://www.fact-index.com... -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?