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

"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."No, not every role the Queen holds is convered by the President or Congress. The Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (also Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, Queen of New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis) The Queen's mail role is to: "Perform the ceremonial and official duties of Head of State, including representing Britain 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; Encourage public and voluntary service." [1] Who said we are wanting to replace the President? The Queen would simply be Head of State and the President would be Head of Government, but equivalent to a Prime Minster..... You said it yourself though, "No one in the US is above politics" and that's the problem. I have already proven that the two party system is corrupted and not working, the political parties no longer has the United States's interests and the American people are getting sick of politics, which I have already addressed and you seem to have dropped my points on that. "The reason we have term limits is to prevent the abuse of power." "There have traditionally not been any term limits in the United States Congress"[2] "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."The United States does not have checks and balnces, look at its Government Shutdown.[3] But speaking of the Government Shutdown, "Australia had a government shutdown once. In the end, the queen fired everyone in Parliament."[4] The only difference is that over there they got fired, over here they are still active and wasting taxpayers money. Here's proof of that: http://goo.gl... Again, the most stable nations are monarchies. Monarchy has an interest in keeping its subordinates healthy and productive where democracy is unstable and self destructive. Kings know they will last for lifetime so they feel the need to be magnanimous and benevolent. Temporary governors on the contrary accumulate as much as they can during their term knowing that is coming to an end. Changing government every five years prevents a nation from achieving anything. Monarchs, knowing that the country is a personal possession will always act with good judgment rather than wasting resources. In democracy by contrast, the government will grab as much as it can, without regard to the future. In contrast to a king, a president will want to maximize not total government wealth but current income even at the risk of decreasing the national principal value. As for our Constitution, the foremost aim of the Royalist Tea Party [RTP] is to petition the Commonwealth of Nations to accept the United States as a member state and to restore the succession of the British Monarchy to the United States through Constitutional Convention (per Article V of the United States Constitution). Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification. "The European Union is a politico-economic union of 28 member states that are primarily located in Europe. The EU operates through a system of supranational independent institutions and intergovernmental negotiated decisions by the member states."[5], the United Kingdom will be leaving this Union in 2015 when UKIP is elected. I don't see how this has anything to do with this debate though. "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."No, the Queen will not magicially fix all our problems. Though I have already provided the benefits of us having the Queen as Head of State."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." No, we are a constitutional republic[6]. And our plans to become a Constitutional Monarchy is not irrelevant."Note that the end of the excerpt from my opponents argument is misleading by a little over a decade. Also, in terms of GDP per capita the US also well exceeds my opponents numbers. "Not true. Look at Canada, Canada is a constitutional monarchy, and the United States is a constitutional republic. Canada has a life expectancy of 81.48 years, with a debt of $1.51 trillion, the United States has a life expectancy of 78.49 years, with a debt of $15.9 trillion. The United Kingdom has a life expectancy of 80.29 years, with a debt of $2.29 trillion. The United States has a life expectancy of 78.49 years, with a debt of $15.9 trillion. [7] "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."In conclusion, my opponent has made false and misleading claims that a Constitutional Monarchy on average is not better than the United States in both life expectancy and GDP. He thinks that levels of democracy in two very differeant types of government is not irrelevant to my case and thinks it doesn't matter if the American people thinks the Queen is "cool". When for a fact, recently reported, on Wednesday, July 2, 2014, that "Poll after poll has charted President Obama’s dipping approval rating in recent months, but Wednesday brought perhaps the cruelest cut to date: A new Quinnipiac University survey found that voters rate Mr. Obamaas the country's worst president since World War II"[8] Who else can we look up to? No one indeed. My opponent has dropped my points on the benefits, on the cost, and has said it himself "No one in the US is above politics" I have proved that having an apolitical head of state is better than having a politician as head of state. My opponent has also dropped my points on the United States failing, on the two-party system, and has failed to dispute my claims on the lack of lack of competence that we, Americans, have in politics. As a result, I urge a Pro vote. 01. American President (Leader of the crowned republic) [9]02. House of Commons of the United States [10]03. Parliament of the United States [11]04. Her Majesty (Head of State) [12] Sources:[1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...[3] http://goo.gl...[4] http://goo.gl...[5] http://goo.gl...[6] http://goo.gl...[7] http://goo.gl...[8] http://goo.gl...[9] http://goo.gl...[10] http://goo.gl...[11] http://goo.gl...[12] http://goo.gl...