How "Monarchical" can the U.S. Presidency appear?

libbrit

Banned
Having the President use his position as Commander in Chief far more explicitly-directly leading armies into battle as european monarchs did until very close to the time of the American revolution.
 
Though that was because both Hamilton and Jefferson were slandering Adams. That and getting the the slave vote was surprisingly pro-Jefferson. Without them Adams would have been reelected.
You mean the slave-owner vote, right? :p That's not actually surprising at all -- the Democratic-Republicans were strongly supported in the South. Jefferson himself was a Southern slave owner. Meanwhile, Adams was a Federalist, a Northerner and not a slave owner.
 
But, aren't we already there? We often use the term "Imperial Presidency," and he lives in a ritzy palace with servants, and has to be sadly formal in public. And he does have alot of power, over no small amount of turf, even if consitutionally limited.

RPW@Cy wrote:
Adams was probably right to consider some form of "His Majesty" instead - the original meaning isn't that different and it was originally a (Roman) republican title after all. "His Majesty the President of the United States" doesn't sound that absurd a title.
I'm afraid you're having a memoryo - it was the title "Emperor" (imperator in Latin) that was of Roman origin, because they forbade the title King for the same reason as we forbade titled nobility - bad experience.

Libbrit, Washington even lead troops into battle personally, though ISTR he was the last. As President, he lead the Army into the Whiskey Rebellion, and beat and dispersed it.
 
RPW@Cy wrote:
I'm afraid you're having a memoryo - it was the title "Emperor" (imperator in Latin) that was of Roman origin, because they forbade the title King for the same reason as we forbade titled nobility - bad experience.

No, I'm not. "Majesty" was a term that originally applied to the authority of the republic itself, which got transferred to the emperor when the emperor assumed in his person the embodiment of state authority - it's from this that it's use as a royal title comes. From Wikipedia -

"Originally, during the Roman republic, the word maiestas was the legal term for the supreme status and dignity of the state, to be respected above everything else. This was crucially defined by the existence of a specific crime, called laesa maiestas, literally "Violated Majesty" (in English law Lese majesty, via the French Lèse-majesté), consisting of the violation of this supreme status. Various acts such as celebrating a party on a day of public mourning, contempt of the various rites of the state and disloyalty in word or act were punished as crimes against the majesty of the republic. However, later, under the Empire, it came to mean an offence against the dignity of the Emperor."
 
RPW@Cy:
Lese Majeste strikes as pretty funnily strained. Who knew a CRIME counted at the title of a ruler? That makes as much sense as use of the kept Maryland crime of hunting of the King's Deer to decide we must've been still a monarchy....
 
What about being known by their first names and numerals? President George I etc.
Surname-and-numeral would be more interesting.

-- President Adams I
-- President Adams II
-- President Harrison I
-- President Johnson I
-- President Harrison II
-- President Roosevelt I
-- President Roosevelt II
-- President Johnson II
-- President Bush I
-- President Bush II
 
Top