WI: Monarchy applies for admission as US state?

[DominusNovus]

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” straight from the US Constitution. And every independent state that has applied for admission or annexation has been a republic prior to doing so. The closest any monarchy came to being annexed was Hawaii, but their monarchy was overthrown first. Add to all this that the federal and state governments are prohibited from granting titles of nobility.

So, suppose some monarchy out there decides they want to be in the United States. The population and government of both countries are in favor. The only question is what to do with the monarchy. Assume its a Constitutional Monarchy. Options that I see:

• Abolish the monarchy
• Annex, but do not admit as a state until the monarchy is abolished
• Amend Constitfution to smooth over the issue
• The new state institutes an office (ceremonial or otherwise) with a life term and whose successor is appointed by the current office holder that just so happens to correspond to the old position as monarch. But totally not a monarchy, no sir.

Thats all I have for now.

 

[TheReal_McChicken]

Cromwellian Lord Protectorship?

 

[JustinianTheGrand]

Depends how beneficial. The constitution wont be amended unless the benefit is massive.

 

[Analytical Engine]

It hinges on the definition of the words "guarantee" and "republican".

If "guarantee" means "if the state wants to be a republic, then the government shall 100% support this, but it doesn't have to be a republic if it doesn't want to be", then that allows for more options than "the state had better be republican, or else it can't join the union".

If "republican" means "the state should have democratic institutions before joining the union, which includes constitutional monarchy", again, that allows for more options than "the state should be a republic, and no monarchy of any kind".

 

[chornedsnorkack]

How did the Titles of Nobility clause get into Articles of Confederation, otherwise a fairly loose union (Articles passed in November 1777, ratified in 1781, sticking point seems to have been western lands?)

nor shall the united states, in congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

Republics that did grant titles of nobility were very much around in 1776-1777. Venice, Genua and others.

What would have happened if some of the 13 States had in 1776-1777 objected to putting Titles of Nobility clause in because they did want to grant titles or at least keep the option open?

 

[Mikestone8]

Iirc Poland was called a Republic when it elected its Kings. Would anything in the CONUS forbid a State from allowing its Governor to be elected for life?

 

[MorningDew]

Hawaii is technically STILL a monarchy

 

[GeographyDude]

• The new state institutes an office (ceremonial or otherwise) with a life term and whose successor is appointed by the current office holder that just so happens to correspond to the old position as monarch. But totally not a monarchy, no sir.

If "republican" means "the state should have democratic institutions before joining the union, which includes constitutional monarchy", again, that allows for more options than "the state should be a republic, and no monarchy of any kind

I think it's going to be something like this.

Saying a Constitutional monarchy isn't a real monarchy and is therefore okay. That is, we're likely to do a finesse.

 

[GeographyDude]

Republics that did grant titles of nobility were very much around in 1776-1777. Venice, Genua and others.

Iirc Poland was called a Republic when it elected its Kings. Would anything in the CONUS forbid a State from allowing its Governor to be elected for life?

Hawaii is technically STILL a monarchy

Kentucky Colonel is a ceremonial title.

In Texas, I think Texas Ranger is both real and has been used as a ceremonial title.

And then, goodness gracious, in modern times it's the way we adulate a president. This guy from the UK said, Me thinks you elect a King. Me thinks he's correct! And in earlier times, this may have been a governor.

 

[Dante]

My dad is a Kentucky Colonel, apparently the Governor of Kentucky at the time my dad was doing business with the state government tossed them around like candy.
Interesting story:

When you become a Kentucky Colonel they give you an official card saying as such. My dad and mom were on vacation in Italy, where my dad was born and raised until he moved to the U.S. at 15. Anyway, they're driving around and my dad gets pulled over for speeding. The cops come up to the door and ask for license and registration, or whatever the Italian version of that is, and my dad starts talking. In the perfect Italian of a native, he explains that he is an American citizen and part of a secret government task force. He proceeds to pull out his card and show them that he is a "Colonel" and as a fat, balding middle aged man is clearly right in the middle of some sort of James Bond situation. They apologized profusely and let him continue on his way.

 

[Brady Kj]

That is an awesome anecdote!

I think the American people are uncomfortable enough with the idea of monarchy that they would want to wait for the monarchy to be eliminated before the country even becomes a territory.

 

[Dante]

That is an awesome anecdote!

I think the American people are uncomfortable enough with the idea of monarchy that they would want to wait for the monarchy to be eliminated before the country even becomes a territory.

Depending on the monarchy in question I think Americans would be alright with a constitutional monarch with no real power. Say, for instance, the United Kingdom decides to enter the Union for whatever reason. They are probably going to enter as four states: England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Where does that leave the monarchy of the U.K.? The monarchy has very little real power and serves more in a symbolic role. Maybe the monarch continues on in this symbolic role and it's just seen as a weird quirk of these states, for instance the monarch officially opens the sessions of the respective states' legislatures and "chooses" the governors of the states the same way they "choose" the Prime Minister. As stated above the Constitution guarantees a "republican" form of government for any new states, but what is a republic? It's just a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, which you could argue the U.K. generally has. The argument could be made that the monarch of Britain doesn't really hold any power, the sticking point would be that the POTUS would have to be the head of state, not the monarch.

 

[TheMathGuy]

That directly runs afoul of Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." Titles that confer no powers, compensation, or other formal benefits might be acceptable, but still may be unacceptable if they are hereditary.

As an example, if Japan wanted to join the US, the position of Emperor would have to be removed from the state government. He could maintain his title informally and in a private capacity as a religious figure. Alternatively, an amendment would be needed to remove Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 and Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1. I find it unlikely that such an Amendment would gain any support post-1787. Additionally, most monarchies also have explicitly religious duties that would run afoul of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The best way to get rid of it would be to delay the Constitutional convention. With more time under the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation, perhaps there could be backlash against republicanism. If they try to make it work until 1800, Washington and Franklin (highly respected, wealthy, and committed republicans by the end of the revolution) would be dead, and failures of the Articles could be tied to the Jeffersonian faction. Adams' faction in a less republican environment could push for a convention to create a more explicitly oligarchical government. That's still a really big if, since the inadequacies of the Articles were recognized fairly early.

 

[Schnozzberry]

Hawaii is technically STILL a monarchy

What? When Hawaii was annexed it was a republic, and Hawaii's governments under American governance haven't brought back the monarchy.

As for the question at hand, a monarchical country joining the USA would not be allowed to keep the monarchy if the former country were to seek statehood. As @TheMathGuy noted, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution nips that in the bud entirely for states, and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 also forbids the Federal government from giving titles of nobility as well, making another way in which such a title would be forbidden.

The only way a monarchy joining the USA might be able to retain the monarchy would be via joining as either a Territory (likely as a Puerto Rican-esque Commonwealth) or in some manner akin to an Indian Reservation, although I doubt either would work. The closest realistic arrangement would probably be for a monarchy to become an Associated State akin to Palau and Micronesia than actual annexation.

 

[DominusNovus]

That directly runs afoul of Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." Titles that confer no powers, compensation, or other formal benefits might be acceptable, but still may be unacceptable if they are hereditary.

As an example, if Japan wanted to join the US, the position of Emperor would have to be removed from the state government. He could maintain his title informally and in a private capacity as a religious figure. Alternatively, an amendment would be needed to remove Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 and Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1. I find it unlikely that such an Amendment would gain any support post-1787. Additionally, most monarchies also have explicitly religious duties that would run afoul of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The best way to get rid of it would be to delay the Constitutional convention. With more time under the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation, perhaps there could be backlash against republicanism. If they try to make it work until 1800, Washington and Franklin (highly respected, wealthy, and committed republicans by the end of the revolution) would be dead, and failures of the Articles could be tied to the Jeffersonian faction. Adams' faction in a less republican environment could push for a convention to create a more explicitly oligarchical government. That's still a really big if, since the inadequacies of the Articles were recognized fairly early.

Changing the drafting of the Constitution in the 1780s is cheating, since it removes the entire difficulty of this question.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

The King of the Hawaiians is not recognized by the United States Government or the Government of the State of Hawai'i, he is however recognized by Hawaiians, and since peoples decide that sort of thing in spirit, sure, the Kingdom of Hawaii is still around. /skip

 

[TheMathGuy]

Changing the drafting of the Constitution in the 1780s is cheating, since it removes the entire difficulty of this question.

Luther v. Borden establishes that it is a political question, and therefore not justiciable. Therefore, the "a republican form of government" clause means whatever Congress and the President say they mean. The "Titles of Nobility" clause would be justiciable, just like its textual neighbor, the Emoluments clause.

So, returning to my hypothetical Japan scenario: Congress and the President decide to allow Japan to join as one or more states under their current constitution. Assuming that Federal courts don't overturn Luther v. Borden, then Japan can't be sued for lacking "a republican form of government". However, the state government of Japan could then be sued for having a title of nobility (and also for violating the Establishment Clause, but that's a different matter). That would lead the court to require the state government of Japan to formally abolish the office of Emperor. The people of Japan could still refer to him as Emperor, and he could still serve his Shinto religious duties. He just can't be formally established by the government as Emperor. I don't think that would be acceptable for what you want.

To avoid that, you'd need support for "titles of nobility" that hasn't existed in the US since the revolution. Rather, the US has become increasingly more egalitarian over time. Getting rid of that is also going against the general direction of history for the past two centuries. Europe has gone from only Switzerland and San Marino to a majority of its states, and the European states with monarchs have removed nearly all their power (alongside the aristocracy's political power, cf the modern history of the British House of Lords). To have a US that finds aristocracy and monarchy less objectionable and willing to pass an amendment to remove the two clauses banning titles of nobility, you need to prevent the global decline of strongly aristocratic states, and likely need to make them thrive instead. That's a really big ask.

 

[DominusNovus]

I wonder how far down the titles of nobility clause has been incorporated. In the scenario proposed of Japan, while the state of Japan might not be able to formally maintain an emperor, might the individual cities of Japan?

 

[Brady Kj]

Depending on the monarchy in question I think Americans would be alright with a constitutional monarch with no real power.

I think almost all Americans are comfortable with such a monarchy being our ally, but I would not approve any kind of monarchy within a US state or territory. I asked my girlfriend, who's also American, and she wouldn't either. I don't think most Americans would approve it, or approve it with such fervor that they'll want a creative interpretation of the constitution to allow it within our country. I guess I could consider a reservation with a symbolic monarch, but that's as far as I'd even consider the idea going.
Do you think we should do a poll of Americans on this forum to see what they think about states with monarchy?
Also, a state of England with about 55 million people and only two senators is a real unfair deal for them. More unfair is a territory of England with no senators or representatives.

 

[TheMathGuy]

Legally, local governments are creations of their State government and can only possess those powers vested in them by the State, whether via the State constitution or subsequent legislation, ie local governments are not sovereign. Localities would require the State to allow them to pass a title of nobility, which is a power that forbidden to States.

Now, there are alternatives they could do. Making a ceremonial elected (or governor-appointed) position that holds office for life but retains no powers other than to serve as a goodwill ambassador of the region is constitutionally permissible, though giving them the power to appoint their own successor is probably not. Cultural considerations could lead them to keep electing/appointing the person who holds the unofficial imperial title.