Consitution for a Monarchical America

Whe had a good time writing the America-Wank Constitution so how about one for Monarchical America.

Due to [Handwavium] Reason, Washington accepts the offer for the Kingship. He takes the place of the Presidents under the AoC, but has the same problems.
So in 1788 Delicates meet in Philadelphia by the Kings Command to write a new Constitution.

?Do the American keep Head of State and Head of Government, together like OTL US or do whe separate them like France or Britain.?

?Do whe go with hereditary, or with elections for new Monarchs?

?Congress or Parliament?
 
Article II:

Executive authority is vested in the monarch, a hereditary official, who governs with the blessing of the congress and the people. The monarch is the “Defender of the Constitution, Protector of the Rights of Man and embodiment of the Nation’s Unity, Liberty and Life.” The monarch is the head of state and appoints the Royal Cabinet, a body consisting of the chancellor, the heir to the throne (if of age), and a number of department heads. The cabinet can, in emergency situations, act collectively in the name of the monarch if he or she is unable to. Additionally, the monarch appoints the Chancellor (from amongst the elected members of Congress), and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints Supreme Court justices, subsidiary federal judges, federal prosecutors, secretaries to head the executive departments established by Congress, ambassadors to foreign lands and numerous other civilian and military officials. The monarch has the authority to remove these officials from office for just cause, except for the Chancellor and Supreme Court justices, who can only be removed from office by action of the Senate and after being impeached by the House. The monarch is also titular commander-in-chief of the armed forces, represents the kingdom in international relations, and has the right to veto legislation passed by the Congress, issue pardons, commute sentences and sign treaties after they’ve been ratified by the Senate. The monarch is expected to submit an annual state of the kingdom report to the congress.
 
Eventually such a system would probably evolve in to a Westminster system, with the majority leader in the <legislature> telling the monarch what to do with the executive power.
 
I don't think the constitution would change *that* much, especially if the monarchy was elected rather than hereditary as many historical monarchies were. Indeed it's arguable that the sole distinction between the OTL US President and an elected monarch, other than of course the positions name is that an elected monarch is elected for life where as the US president is elected for terms of 4 years and can't serve more than 2 terms
 
I don't think the constitution would change *that* much, especially if the monarchy was elected rather than hereditary as many historical monarchies were. Indeed it's arguable that the sole distinction between the OTL US President and an elected monarch, other than of course the positions name is that an elected monarch is elected for life where as the US president is elected for terms of 4 years and can't serve more than 2 terms

Let us consider the available examples. How did the Constitutional Convention come up with the name "President" and a term of 4 years, with unlimited reelection? Pull it out of their arses?

Captain-General of the Union was the one official of Utrecht Union as such. How were Dutch armies led in stadtholderless periods? After Field Marshal van Brederode died?

Poland had a living elective monarchy, heavily limited in power but lifetime. The Duke of Venice was elected for lifetime like King of Poland but was not called King.

The Dukes of Genua were effectually limited to 2 year term. The Rectors of Ragusa served for a single month, eligible for reelection after two years. Swiss Confederacy had little in the way of an executive.

Commonwealth of England had had Cromwell for life from the beginning. Initially by Instrument of Government, his successor was to be elected, but later he was given the right to appoint a successor.

So... how about electing Washington as Lord Protector for life? With substantial constitutional restrictions?
 
Let us consider the available examples. How did the Constitutional Convention come up with the name "President"?

There were previous US Presidents, no matter how post-Constitution historians tend to willfully forget them.

I don't think that the title 'Chancellor' would be used, I think they would continue terms and titles from Continental Congress period. I think you could see 'President-Minister' being used for the 'Head of Government' since I'm not entirely sure that both offices, 'Head of State' and 'Head of Government' would be combined in one US monarchy.

Its likely that Washington may be permitted to designate an 'Heir Apparent' and that Congress could confirm them. The likelihood of hereditary kingship may not be used simply since Washington didn't have any children. I think there will be a interesting mix and balance of new ideas and old, mostly from Britain, that will produce a unique new form.
 
There were previous US Presidents, no matter how post-Constitution historians tend to willfully forget them.

I think people also tend to not realize that President is simply derived from the word preside, reflecting the fact that that's exactly what the President did in the Continental Congress, and also why the Vice President is referred to as the President of the Senate.

But anyway, I agree with chornedsnorkack, if we use historical examples (and assuming we're sticking to the basic ideals of popular representation), we'd likely end up with an elected monarchy, not a hereditary one (not necessarily mutually exclusive, however).
 
Just change the title from President to Monarch. It is difficult to see any actual difference anyway.
 
Eventually such a system would probably evolve in to a Westminster system, with the majority leader in the <legislature> telling the monarch what to do with the executive power.


Not if the two houses manage to keep parity like OTL. At this point the British's claims to bicameralism is laughable. If the houses keep parity it gives the Executive enough wiggle room to keep and even expand power.

Edit: I also wonder what kind of effect this would have on the French Revolution?
 
Hmm, I'd suggest having a look at the Brazilian Constitution during its Empire for inspirations - particularly it's unique concept of a "Moderating Power".
 
Hmm, I'd suggest having a look at the Brazilian Constitution during its Empire for inspirations - particularly it's unique concept of a "Moderating Power".

That had come to mind also. However, the American Revolution was a conservative revolution or at least it ended with the adoption of a conservative form of government - a written constitution versus an unwritten constitution. With so many lawyers involved I think they will be careful to iron most things out.
 
Top