Presidents are not kings

I'm not sure how to characterise this slogan since pretty much all of the current monarchs are constitutional monarchs. The current batch are under significant constraints to ensure that constitutional monarchs serve as symbols of national unity rather than as active rulers, reflecting a balance between tradition and democratic governance. And this has been pretty much the case since the 17th and 18th Centuries.

I probably should define "constitutional monarchy" since it seems most people who chant this slogan are ignorant of this system of government where a monarch serves as the ceremonial head of state, with their powers defined and limited by a constitution. This allows the monarch to perform official duties while the legislative body holds the authority to create and repeal laws. Countries with constitutional monarchies often blend traditional royal ceremonies with modern democratic practices, providing a sense of stability amid political changes. 

In 2025, there were forty-three monarchies in the world, most of which were categorized as constitutional monarchies; fifteen of those shared King Charles III as their monarch, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and several Caribbean nations.

A defining feature of a constitutional monarchy is that the monarch respects the limitations set forth by the constitution and rarely seeks to alter such a document in his or her favor. Even in the United Kingdom itself, which has no written constitution but rather a series of foundational documents, the king or queen remains within the bounds set by customary rules.  This characteristic is the important one if one is going to run around ignorantly saying "no kings".

Monarchs don't act like Trump.

On the other hand, the United States is a dysfunctional democracy. Dysfunctional democracy refers to a political system where democratic processes fail to effectively represent the will of the people, often leading to dissatisfaction and instability among citizens. This can occur due to issues like ineffective governance, lack of accountability, and the erosion of civil rights.

A dysfunctional democracy can appear to have democratic institutions, but those don't really represent the will of the people. For a democracy to work, the democracy needs to be properly functioning.

This is a good transition to how the current duopoly system doesn't represent the people:

Very few people are talking about how Amazon came into existence during the Clinton administration with its intent of at least cornering the book market. Or to quote what the search came up with "mazon was named after the Amazon River, which is the largest river in the world, reflecting Jeff Bezos's vision of making his store the biggest bookstore."  Amazon has made it clear that it aims to dominate the e-commerce market by offering "a wide range of products and services".

Like Walmart, Amazon is good at killing small businesses and preventing the rise of competition.

But, to get us back to the subject of monarchs: which system has universal healthcare, housing, and works for the people: the US's "Democratic-republic" or a constitutional monarchy?

I'll take a monarchy if that's what it offers. 

Trump proves that you can't run a country like a business.

 Unless you want to see what happens when you elect someone who has had several bankruptcies.

 

Why the Westminster system really beats the US model.

 I was talking with Doggone and she commented about the ability to change governments in the Westminster system. When a government loses the ability to legislate, it also gets tossed out (vote of no confidence).  I've pointed out before that 

I like it because the power is where it belongs: in the lesiglature. Additionally, because of that, there is an absolute necessity for political cooperation. One needs to come up with a consensus for a parliamentary system to work. The government literally falls if there can't be a consensus, which is why it is necessary. A lower house of parliament with an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) supply" (rejecting a budget), passing a motion of no confidence, or defeating a confidence motion.

Loss of supply occurs where a government in a parliamentary democracy using the Westminster System or a system derived from it is denied a supply of treasury or exchequer funds, by whichever house or houses of parliament or head of state is constitutionally entitled to grant and deny supply. A defeat on a budgetary vote is one way by which supply can be denied. Loss of supply is typically interpreted as indicating a loss of confidence in the government. Not all "money bills" are necessarily supply bills. For instance, in Australia, supply bills are defined as "bills which are required by the Government to carry on its day-to-day business".^[1]

When a loss of supply occurs, a prime minister is generally required either by constitutional convention or by explicit constitutional instruction to either resign immediately or seek a parliamentary dissolution.

Some constitutions, however, do not allow the option of parliamentary dissolution but rather require the government to be dissolved or to resign.

Comedian George Hargreaves on the Seven PMs in the last 10 years: 

I should say that the changes of government are due more to the mistake called Brexit.

Anyone who knows me will tell you that I was a very staunch remainer, but in the EU, not Britain. 

Of course, as I have also pointed out that the US would probably go through governments faster than Italy or Belgium. In fact, I would guess that it would make Belgium look relatively stable.

My voting third party has nothing to do with a protest vote other than to possibly say the US system is very broken. 

'Wha’ll be king but Charlie' - Scottish Jacobite Song

There's a lot of irony here in using a Jacobite song: especially since the movement is pretty much dead. Unless you're a septic or out of touch with the world. 

On the other hand, the current King is Charles, which was a poor choice for a name since Kings named Charles haven't had good runs so far.

He should have gone with Arthur.

But, the first Charles did rule during the start of the English Civil War, which is similar to the Civil War that is brewing in the US. One where the Constitutional power will be divided up to put paid to the myth of three equal branches. 

Any Parliamentary system needs to have the power in the legislative branch with a weak executive head of state.

Otherwise, it does seem appropriate since Trump isn't very much of a leader. He's the cartoon villain. The heel of World Wrestling Entertainment kayfaybe. 

The fallacious thinking of the "No Kings" anti-Trumpers

 It’s nice to say ignorant things like « no kings » when Canada has a king and things are much better. The even more important aspect of that is that Canada IS BRITISH NORTH AMERICA!

Anyway, your tweedledum-tweedledumber two party system is responsible for the issues you decry: not just Donald Trump.

As is the US Constitution, which gave you the first Trump administration through the electoral college.

And for that matter, you might want to look up the history of the insurrection act and how that « trumps » posse comitatus. 

So, you need to work to destroy the oligarchs and the two party system if you seriously want to get the power in the hands of the people.

Only a real multi party democracy will do that.

A Canadian view on "no kings"

Just remember that Canada is British North America and you don't need to take a guess about alternative history.

And you would be having new elections if you were like Canada and still had a king.

 

The fallacious thinking of the "No Kings" anti-Trumpers

They are ignorant of the fact that you would be having new elections if you still had a king because you would be under the Westminster system. Failure to pass a budget bill requires that the government disolve because of Loss of supply, which implies a loss of confidence in that system.

Toss in that Prince Andrew has been stripped of his titles and honours (except that of prince) because of his association with Epstein by King Charles.

Think about that when you say ignorant things about having a Constitutional Monarch.

Also, realise that the taxes levied by Britain on the Colonies were the bill for the war caused by George Washington. I'm sure things could have come to a screeching halt had the British asked for money up front instead of letting things slide during that conflict.

Just look up Benjamin Franklin's Albany Plan of Union for how the British could have stopped any seeds of independence arising.

Because you might be living under a French system where militarised police (Gendarmes) are the norm had the British not funded the defence of the colonies.

Think about that.

There's a reason this man is looking so smug.

Bring Down The Government!

Or why is this man looking so smug?

The bottom line is that if the US had a Westminster system, the government would be dissolved and there would be new elections.  One of the characteristics of a government run under this is a llegislative body with an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) supply" (rejecting a budget).

Loss of supply occurs where a government in a parliamentary democracy using the Westminster System or a system derived from it is denied a supply of treasury or exchequer funds, by whichever house or houses of parliament or head of state is constitutionally entitled to grant and deny supply. A defeat on a budgetary vote is one way by which supply can be denied. Loss of supply is typically interpreted as indicating a loss of confidence in the government. Not all money bills are necessarily supply bills. For instance, in Australia, supply bills are defined as "bills which are required by the Government to carry on its day-to-day business"

It's also amusing that septics in their ignorance don't realise that the English Civil War was about who had the power: the monarch or the legislature.

The legislature won.
The

Will Trump cause the collapse of the US Government?

 Perhaps it's time to admit that the US is a de facto Westminster Parliamentary Democracy. That is a system where the lower house of parliament has an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) supply" (rejecting a budget). This automatically leads to a call for new elections. 

Loss of supply occurs where a government in a parliamentary democracy using the Westminster System or a system derived from it is denied a supply of treasury or exchequer funds, by whichever house or houses of parliament or head of state is constitutionally entitled to grant and deny supply. A defeat on a budgetary vote is one way by which supply can be denied. Loss of supply is typically interpreted as indicating a loss of confidence in the government. Not all money bills are necessarily supply bills. For instance, in Australia, supply bills are defined as "bills which are required by the Government to carry on its day-to-day business". 

A similar deadlock can occur within a presidential system, where it is also known as a budget crisis. In contrast to parliamentary systems, the failure of the legislature to authorize spending may not in all circumstances result in an election, because some such legislatures enjoy fixed terms and so cannot be dissolved before a date of termination, which can result in a prolonged crisis. 

Wouldn't calling for an election to see how popular the government make far more sense than this? 

Other than it would put paid to the myth that the US system lives with compromise. Your governments would make Belgium or Italy look stable if you went to a parliamentary system.

The Right doesn't like to face this - our debt and deficit, both, are their fault

Nein! Nein! Nein!, Herman Cain, to Your 9-9-9; We Get It! And We DON'T Want It!

Nein! nein! nein! - No! No! NO! Appears to be the overwhelming response from economists and the electorate. This is a dumb idea, and the public seems to have caught on that it is against their interests to embrace this plan. I suspect that the public, even those low information voters, are wising up that Herman Cain is not the biz wiz he has been hyped to be.

The following is from MSNBC.com, and I post it here because it includes an excellent sampling of the economists who have spoken out in careful and thoughtful criticism after analyzing 9-9-9.  I find the unscientific poll at the end of particular interest, in view of the numbers participating:

Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan is simple:

Most will simply pay more

Jim Young / Reuters

"If the public understands it, they will support it and demand it. That is going to be the difference. It is not a complicated piece of legislation," Herman Cain says of his "9-9-9" tax plan.

By John W. Schoen, Senior Producer

Editor's note: This story has been corrected to include the dropped word "income" in the paragraph about households who pay no income tax. The link also has been updated to provide more recent data.
When it comes to Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain's proposed 9-9-9 tax plan, there’s one thing all sides agree on: it’s very simple.
If you're a corporation, own a small business or count yourself among the richest Americans, you'll simply love it. If not, you'd simply pay a lot more in taxes.
Everyone hates the current tax code. A Congressional supercommittee is attacking the mess as part of a broad proposal to balance the federal budget. President Barack Obama wants to pay for his jobs stimulus package by raising taxes on the wealthiest households. Corporations are agitating for a “tax holiday” to bring home over a $1 trillion in profits stashed overseas to avoid the IRS back home.
Now Cain, who has recently surged to the front of the pack of GOP presidential contenders, is drawing attention to a radical idea. Rather than slog through the political morass of overhauling the existing system, just scrap it entirely. No more deductions, exemptions, incentives and tax loss carry forwards
In its place, Cain wants the government to pay its bills with three sources of revenues held to single-digit rates: a 9 percent tax on all consumer purchases, a 9 percent “business” tax and a 9 percent income tax.
Cain claims the plan is already generating popular support among voters, which will make it much easier to implement in the political quagmire that has numerous tax reform proposals.

“I can be walking through the airport going through security and a TSA agent will say, ‘Hello Mr. Cain: 9-9-9,” Cain recently told CNBC.

“If the public  understands it,they will support it and demand it. That is going to be the difference. It is not a complicated piece of legislation.

But the odds are much higher that, when the public understands it, the vast majority of taxpayers will be horrified to realize they face a huge tax increase. That assessment comes from Bruce Bartlett, a senior official in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, who described the plan as a “distributional monstrosity.”
“The poor would pay more while the rich would have their taxes cut, with no guarantee that economic growth will increase and good reason to believe that the budget deficit will increase” Bartlett recently wrote in the New York Times. “Even allowing for the poorly thought through promises routinely made on the campaign trail, Mr. Cain’s tax plan stands out as exceptionally ill conceived.
The reason the plan would hit poor people much harder that the wealthy is also simple. The current tax code provides a series of deductions, credits and exemptions that ease the tax burden on all households, but they have a greater positive impact those at the bottom of the income ladder. As a result, some 47 percent of U.S. households pay little or no income taxes. They would now suddenly be hit with what amounts to a tax bill that represents 27 percent of their income, according to USC law professor Edward Kleinbard, who published a paper this week calling the 9-9-9 plan “a terrific example of fiscal hocus pocus.”
“It is presented as a low-tax panacea, but it actually would raise the tax bills of many Americans very substantially,” he said.
Though he's gained political momentum by hammering away at the plan's simplicity, Cain has had a harder time explaining how the plan would benefit the average household. In a recent appearance on MSNBC’s The Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd, Cain explained that a family with annual income of $50,000 would come out ahead under the 9-9-9 scheme. But as my NBC News colleague Domenico Montanaro found upon closer examination, the numbers Cain offered just don't add up.
The plan would certainly benefit some households. Owners of small businesses would be among the biggest winners, said Kleinbard, because they could pay themselves with dividends (which would no longer be taxed) instead of wages. That would effectively reduce their tax rate to about 18 percent.
Kleinbard also found that the plan would have some significant unintended consequences, including what amounts to a phantom tax on existing savings. For example, if you bought a new car with money you’d stashed in a savings account, accumulated from earnings, investment gains or interest or dividends that you’ve already paid taxes on, you’d now have to pay yet another 9 percent on the new car.
That phantom tax, which would apply to any purchase made with existing wealth, “may come as a big surprise to Mr. Cain and his followers.”
Cain and advisors who have reviewed the plan insist that it would collect enough money to replace the current tax code and not add to the federal budget deficit. But until Cain presents a more detailed proposal, those estimates are all but impossible to verify.
That uncertainty has drawn fire from the political right. Many support the idea of a flatter, more regressive tax than the current system. But they worry that Cain‘s plan could make it easier for the government to raise revenues.
“The challenge is creating a (business tax) and a sales tax and keeping the income tax  having three taxes all of which can grow,” Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, told MSNBC. “It’s like having three needles in your arm taking blood out. It’s much more dangerous than just one.”
Critics of Cain’s plan argue that he’s hoping that widespread dissatisfaction with the current system will prompt voters to overlook the plan’s numerous pitfalls.
NYU law professor Daniel Shaviro thinks part of the popular appeal of Cain’s plan is that it appears to hold tax rates to single digits – even though the cumulative tax paid by most households would amount to 27 percent. Borrowing from Cain, Shaviro offers and even simpler solution to make existing tax code much more palatable
“Replace the 35 percent annual income tax with a 3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3 monthly tax on annual income,” he recently wrote on his blog. “After all, who's counting if the 12 monthly taxes actually add up to 36 percent annually?”

Do you favor Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan?

   22.8% Yes, it's a simple and fair alternative  (33,140 votes)

   51.4% No, it's just a giveaway to the rich (74,690 votes)

   25.8% Won't know until more details are presented (37,584 votes)

We get it Mr. Cain, and we don't want it; your pizza, er, your economic plan, won't get past the door.  Go back to the food service industry.

Walk in the Sky: An Amazing Park, and a Discussion on the Role of Government and Spending

I have an interest in public policy and public art, including public arts funding which I have written about here. I saw something about this park this morning, of all places, on BBC World News,under their U.S.& Canada coverage, but unfortunately, I could not post their excellent video here, and without that video, the article was not very effective or informative. So here instead are a couple of videos from Youtube about this amazing place, and about the development of it. I find this an exceptional instance of vision and creativity, and I applaud it as something we should all consider further in debating the function and role of government in our lives, particularly the benefits of publicly funded projects using tax dollars.

For a better idea of what this park looks like, I offer you these additional videos:

This seems to me one of the best examples of the benefits that can come to the public with investment in public art and the development of public spaces.  The resulting revenue numbers are as inspiring as the views.  NOT funding such investment is penny wise and pound foolish, but it appears to be very much the premise of the Tea Party and the more libertarian-leaning members of Congress and members of the same political ideology at the state and local level.  They are wrong, they are mistaken; their ideology is flawed in practice.

The Costs of Domestic Violence

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month

DVA symbol

Something to keep in mind as we post here examples of domestic violence using firearms.

To better acquaint our readers with Domestic Violence Awareness Month, here is some information from the Domestic Violence Awareness Project:

The Domestic Violence Awareness Project...

In 1995, the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV) convened several national domestic violence organizations – the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and later the National Network to End Domestic Violence – to launch a new effort to support domestic violence programs’ awareness and education efforts for Domestic Violence Awareness Month (DVAM), observed annually in October. The collaborative effort became the Domestic Violence Awareness Project (DVAP). Today, the DVAP is a diverse and unique partnership of local, tribal, state, and national domestic violence organizations and networks. The DVAP collaborates to collect, develop, and distribute resources and ideas relevant to advocates’ ongoing public and prevention awareness and education efforts not only in preparation for DVAM, but also throughout the year.
The work of the DVAP strives to creatively bring to life its statement of purpose:
The Domestic Violence Awareness Project (DVAP) supports the rights of all individuals, especially women and girls, to live in peace and dignity.  Violence and all other forms of oppression against all communities and families must be eliminated.  The purpose of the DVAP is to support and promote the national, tribal, territorial, state, and local advocacy networks in their ongoing public education efforts through public awareness, strategies, materials, resources, capacity-building, and technical assistance.
These strategies include campaigns that address the victimization of women throughout their lifespan.  The voices, leadership, and expertise of women who have been battered are acknowledged as critical and necessary components of these campaigns.  To change belief systems and practices that support violence and abuse that disproportionately affects women, and other marginalized people, the DVAP recognizes and promotes the participation of the entire community in building social intolerance towards domestic violence.  We will use our diverse and collective voice to promote safe, respectful, and equitable relationships; increase survivor’s access to support systems that are culturally and linguistically appropriate; and foster programming that is responsive to the needs of the LGBTQ community, as well as survivors of abuse in later life. 

©2009 Domestic Violence Awareness Project

3605 Vartan Way, Suite 101 - Harrisburg, PA 17110

800-537-2238 ext. 5

717-545-9456 (fax)

The Domestic Violence Awareness Month Project is coordinated by the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, a project of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Vilolence.

To better put this in perspective was this article I came across from Topeka, Kansas from 'TheWeek.com':

Legalizing domestic violence: Topeka's 'terrible' plan to save money

Just in time for Domestic Violence Awareness Month, Kansas' capital city is on the verge of decriminalizing domestic battery as part of a budget standoff

posted on October 7, 2011, at 11:35 AM

Due to budget cuts, domestic violence cases may no longer be prosecuted in Topeka, Kan., potentially sending a "terrible message" to victims of domestic battery. Photo: Gaetano/Corbis SEE ALL 24 PHOTOS

The Topeka City Council will decide next week whether to essentially legalize domestic violence in the Kansas capital, in a budgetary game of chicken with Shawnee County, which encompasses Topeka. The fight started when Shawnee District Attorney Chad Taylor, facing a 10 percent budget cut for next year, announced Sept. 8 that his office would no longer prosecute misdemeanor cases, including those involving domestic violence, inside Topeka city limits. The City Council is betting that if it strikes Topeka's ordinance against domestic battery, it will force Taylor to reconsider. Here's what you should know:
What happens if Topeka follows through?If the City Council repeals the domestic-battery ordinance, municipal courts wouldn't be able to take on those cases, effectively sending the ball back to Taylor's court. Domestic violence is still a state crime. But "because only Taylor has authority to decide what cases he files and prosecutes," domestic violence prosecution could slow to a trickle, says The Topeka Capital-Journal in an editorial. Repeat offenders are charged as felons, and the D.A. would still take those cases.
How bad could this get?Already, the standoff is putting victims in grave danger "in the world that does not exist inside of an Excel spreadsheet," says Erin Gloria Ryan at Jezebel. Taylor has rejected at least 30 domestic violence cases since Sept. 8, and the 18 people arrested in Topeka for domestic battery have all been released from county jail because no charges were filed. And even if Taylor eventually blinks, and decides to resume prosecuting first-time offenders, the City Council's decriminalization of domestic violence would still send "a terrible message to victims of domestic battery and the entire community," says The Topeka Capital-Journal's editorial board.
How dire is the financial situation?In 2012, the D.A.'s office expects to see $347,765 cut from its budget — which is $3.5 million this year. Of course, if nobody takes these domestic violence cases, it could save some money in the short run, says Marie Diamond at ThinkProgress. But domestic violence has "staggering financial consequences" — medical costs, for instance. There are bigger human costs, too, says Topeka victims' advocate Claudine Dombrowski. If the city and county keep up this "disgusting" fight, "they need to invest in headstones, because these women are going to end up in cemeteries."
Who should shoulder the blame?Everyone involved says they believe domestic violence needs to be prosecuted vigorously, but that they can't pay for it, says Maya Dusenbery at Feministing. And "it’s hard to blame them too harshly for that," given the deep budget cuts hitting states and cities. "Thanks, austerity!" Maybe, says National Organization for Women's Kari Ann Rinker. But right now, local officials are just "finger-pointing and blaming" like 5-year-old children, and they all deserve "some amount of blame" for putting women at undue risk.
Sources: Feministing, Fox 4 Kansas City, The Frisky, Jezebel, Mother Jones, ThinkProgress, Topeka Capital-Journal (2,3,4)