Medieval America Mark III

[tehskyman]

The Chief Justice would still have secular authority over territory of the United States since it can rule its laws "unconstitutional."


While I agree with the notion of a millenarian approach to the Presidency, lets keep current politics out of it. I think the concept of a true President (Called "Potus") would be tied up with the idea of the Millenial Kingdom, that the New Israel must be established to make the Earth ready for Christ's coming.

I didn't mean to bring in current politics. I just imagine that some rulers might reject the president in Baltimore using this logic. Though I don't think that most rulers would tolerate this because achknowledging the President in Cincinatti or Baltimore has political benefits to it.

 

[Flashman]

I didn't mean to bring in current politics. I just imagine that some rulers might reject the president in Baltimore using this logic. Though I don't think that most rulers would tolerate this because achknowledging the President in Cincinatti or Baltimore has political benefits to it.

Also keep in mind that the appointment of each Justice requires presidential consent

 

[Richard Drummond]

I didn't mean to bring in current politics. I just imagine that some rulers might reject the president in Baltimore using this logic. Though I don't think that most rulers would tolerate this because achknowledging the President in Cincinatti or Baltimore has political benefits to it.

You mention the President in Cincinnati which gives me an idea. What if during the early period of the Regression (probably the second half of the 21st century), there is a 'succession crisis' which ends up with president in Cincinnati and one in Baltimore. Perhaps the rightful president is overthrown in a coup but the Navy as loyalists seize the coastal states forcing the coupists to establish their capital in Ohio.

Or maybe, the Democrats and Republicans end up both with their own presidents (Republicans in Cincinnati and Democrats in DC). Neither is willing to actually descend into a civil war due to the chaos or perhaps they do cause a civil war with neither able to unseat the other. So the Supreme Court kicks the President in DC out sending him to Baltimore and they take control over the USA with the chief justice being the de-facto head of state whilst the Republican and Democratic presidents do their job in the territories until their control. Of-course, both presidents do a shitty job but the successor of the Cincinnati President is Ohio whilst the successor of the one in Baltimore is the USA which ended up being seized at one point by the US Navy. However, the East still sees itself as part of 'the Union' which is headed by the Chief Justice as he is in charge of the Nondenomist Church. Perhaps it is the American version of the HRE but with many, many differences.

 

[tehskyman]

You mention the President in Cincinnati which gives me an idea. What if during the early period of the Regression (probably the second half of the 21st century), there is a 'succession crisis' which ends up with president in Cincinnati and one in Baltimore. Perhaps the rightful president is overthrown in a coup but the Navy as loyalists seize the coastal states forcing the coupists to establish their capital in Ohio.

Or maybe, the Democrats and Republicans end up both with their own presidents (Republicans in Cincinnati and Democrats in DC). Neither is willing to actually descend into a civil war due to the chaos or perhaps they do cause a civil war with neither able to unseat the other. So the Supreme Court kicks the President in DC out sending him to Baltimore and they take control over the USA with the chief justice being the de-facto head of state whilst the Republican and Democratic presidents do their job in the territories until their control. Of-course, both presidents do a shitty job but the successor of the Cincinnati President is Ohio whilst the successor of the one in Baltimore is the USA which ended up being seized at one point by the US Navy. However, the East still sees itself as part of 'the Union' which is headed by the Chief Justice as he is in charge of the Nondenomist Church. Perhaps it is the American version of the HRE but with many, many differences.

I think that the two presidents arose when the Governor of Ohio became powerful enough to appoint his own anti-supreme court and was appointed president by his anti-supreme court. I don't think that current politics has anything to do with it.

 

[Rob Bartlett]

"President" is the term used by the head of state in the U.S., and is apparently used by a few breakaway states, but is largely secular in the East, though the Church does "endorse" claims.

The Supreme Court is elected by the District Supervisors (the heads of the their respective "dioceses"), and those Supervisors are appointed by the Supreme Court. It seems the President of the United States DOES have a say in who supervises from the cities in their territory (Boston, Providence, Annapolis and Dover), but otherwise the two are distinct.

I imagine most of the states seceding had less to do with arguments about legitimacy or policy, but a gradual process of diminished infrastructure, so the federal government was unable to send support of enforce laws, and states being unable or unwilling to supply levies. By the time the U.S. got its act together, most of the continent was run by warlords, who quite like the way things are.

The Republican/Democrat labels are probably rather useless and hard to apply to medieval labels, but I would say the Northeast (and the Church) believes in the more fiscally liberal and socially conservative path, and the Heartland (feudal states) is more socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but a medieval society is probably going to be socially conservative and authoritarian by our standards.

 

[Richard Drummond]

"President" is the term used by the head of state in the U.S., and is apparently used by a few breakaway states, but is largely secular in the East, though the Church does "endorse" claims.

The Supreme Court is elected by the District Supervisors (the heads of the their respective "dioceses"), and those Supervisors are appointed by the Supreme Court. It seems the President of the United States DOES have a say in who supervises from the cities in their territory (Boston, Providence, Annapolis and Dover), but otherwise the two are distinct.

I imagine most of the states seceding had less to do with arguments about legitimacy or policy, but a gradual process of diminished infrastructure, so the federal government was unable to send support of enforce laws, and states being unable or unwilling to supply levies. By the time the U.S. got its act together, most of the continent was run by warlords, who quite like the way things are.

The Republican/Democrat labels are probably rather useless and hard to apply to medieval labels, but I would say the Northeast (and the Church) believes in the more fiscally liberal and socially conservative path, and the Heartland (feudal states) is more socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but a medieval society is probably going to be socially conservative and authoritarian by our standards.

A pleasant surprise seeing you here. Your points are valid. If the US President can have a say in who supervises from the cities in their territories, I assume that other leaders can do the same in their territories (the Governor of Georgia has a say when it comes to Atlanta for example).

 

[Richard Drummond]

I think that the two presidents arose when the Governor of Ohio became powerful enough to appoint his own anti-supreme court and was appointed president by his anti-supreme court. I don't think that current politics has anything to do with it.

An anti-Supreme Court. That'd be interesting though I don't think they'd go that far.

 

[tehskyman]

O shit, the second best thing to the real OG is here.

 

[tehskyman]

An anti-Supreme Court. That'd be interesting though I don't think they'd go that far.

The HRE had the anti Pope right? Ohio mightve been able to do it

 

[Flashman]

Possibly the President of the United States is called the Interim President, since elections can't be held?

 

[Richard Drummond]

The HRE had the anti Pope right? Ohio mightve been able to do it

At times the President in Cincinnati might do such a thing. I doubt, however, that it'd be a permanent thing.

Possibly the President of the United States is called the Interim President, since elections can't be held?

I'm sure that in the canon, elections are indeed held.

 

[Flashman]

I'm sure that in the canon, elections are indeed held.

But at a national level?

 

[tehskyman]

But at a national level?

Probably only at a senatorial level.

 

[Richard Drummond]

But at a national level?

I assume the senators are electing the President.

 

[Flashman]

Probably only at a senatorial level.

I assume the senators are electing the President.

There are two problems here: one, if the other states of the Union maintain their senatorial votes, then the US has almost no sovereignty over either internal or Church affairs. But if the Senatorial votes of all states not directly administered by the Federal Government are revoked, then the other states have practically no say over Church affairs since all Judicial appointments go through the Senate.

I think it makes more sense to maintain a House that only serves territories directly adminsitered by the Federal Government that manages internal affairs. The Senate exists as a rubber stamp for the most part, and is only really relevant when it comes to Church affairs, where the House acts as slightly less of a rubber stamp to maintain Federal control over the Church.

This way, assuming the Electoral College is suspended, you could have the House elect a President just like the Constitution says you should when no candidate can secure enough electoral votes.

 

[tehskyman]

In that case, it would make sense that members of the House are made mostly up of the various merchant houses of the USA, members of the navy/their representatives and the landowners around Baltimore, on the Delaware Peninsula etc.

 

[Flashman]

In that case, it would make sense that members of the House are made mostly up of the various merchant houses of the USA, members of the navy/their representatives and the landowners around Baltimore, on the Delaware Peninsula etc.

I think it would be all landowners across the USA .- which is wildly large franchise for the medieval era, but its hard to justify anything else for the US.

Perhaps the "George Washington II" figure could've codified all of this in the "Articles of Emergency?" Such a text could affirm the importance of the Constitution and its inevitable return, and become a revered text in and of itself. George Washington II could be the first officially recognized of the Patriot-Saints.

 

[tehskyman]

You might start to see lesser landowners side with greater landowners to form a Land Faction/Party. Then you have the Merchant Houses who are more urban. They would advocate on behalf of the Navy and naval trade. They are the Sea Faction/Party.

There might be a church/ecclesiastic faction too.

 

[tehskyman]

This USA seems more like Venice than the Byzantines

 

[Flashman]

You might start to see lesser landowners side with greater landowners to form a Land Faction/Party. Then you have the Merchant Houses who are more urban. They would advocate on behalf of the Navy and naval trade. They are the Sea Faction/Party.

There might be a church/ecclesiastic faction too.

This USA seems more like Venice than the Byzantines

Its a little of both, but Venice is definitely closer.

EDIT: The Land faction could be the "Reds" because of the blood of the people and all that, whereas the Naval faction are the "Blues" due to their assosciation with the sea. The Clergy are the whites, and can go one way or another.

Also, all national parks in Nondenominational land would go the USA, and in most cases the Church. Same for Indian reservations?