Political Parties

I belong to the Constitutional Monarchist party even though I am registered as a Democrat. This is because being an independent in Philadelphia is like being an atheist in Northern Ireland: I.e. "Are you a Democrat Indpendent or a Republican Independent?" Anyway, being a Constitutional Monarchist is the best way to express my political philosophy, but unfortunately, I am probably the only Constitutional Monarchist in the United States.

Republicanism is the ideology of governing a nation as a republic, with an emphasis on liberty, rule of law, popular sovereignty and the civic virtue practiced by citizens. Republicanism always stands in opposition to aristocracy, oligarchy, and dictatorship. More broadly, it refers to a political system that protects liberty, especially by incorporating a rule of law that cannot be arbitrarily ignored by the government. Or as John Adams put it, “They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.” Much of the literature deals with the issue of what sort of values and behavior by the citizens is necessary if the republic is to survive and flourish; the emphasis has been on widespread citizen participation, civic virtue, and opposition to corruption.

Now the "Republican" party has truly fallen away from this, especially in terms of its attitude toward rule of law and the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment would make sense if there were still a strong institutional militia; however, most "republicans" aren't willing to accept that institution. Moreover, they are willing to destroy the rule of law for popular opinion, which is the exact opposite of how Adams defined a republic.

People in a republic are expected to participate and give their efforts to running the democracy. In early American times, I would have had some government job where I could have contributed my skills and knowledge. Nowadays, I am marginally employed. People seem to get government jobs by knowing somebody, not by ability.

Worse, the "Republicans" have taken to talking about democracy, which is a contradiction. Not to mention it leads to my next point.

Democracy:

In political theory, Democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. A common feature of democracy as currently understood and practiced is competitive elections. Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and some degree of rule of law. Civilian control of the military is often seen as necessary to prevent military dictatorship and interference with political affairs. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights.

Competitive elections! That doesn't really apply in the United States as I think that it is a system where loads of money is required to get anywhere in the political process.

Absolute democracy is mobocracy where the majority rule. Of course, this isn't really the case in the United States as the 2000 and 2004 elections have shown. Also, I have never had the opportunity to vote for a candidate I support (e.g., Wesley Clark in the 2004 election). We are seeing a wonderful thwarting of democracy regarding the Michigan and Florida primaries and apportioning of delegates.

I find it interesting that both a Democracy and Republic demand rule of law, as does a Constitutional monarchy. However, we may be seeing the thwarting of the rule of law by the Second Amendment/Right to Keep and Bear Arms crowd. The Heller case is a wonderful example of how the rule of law works and how it may be thwarted. the principle of rule of law means that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance, whether by a totalitarian leader or by mob rule.

I keep rattling on about stare decisis which is part of procedural rules. A court must follow precedent unless there is a valid reason to overrule that precedent. In other words, judges should rule in a predictable and non-chaotic manner. Even more salient, judges should not be swayed by popular opinion or the law will change willy-nilly. Justice Breyer recently summarized this Court’s approach, “[T]he rule of law demands that adhering to . . . prior case law be the norm [and] [d]eparture from precedent is exceptional and requires ‘special justifications’ . . . . especially [where] the principle has become settled through iteration and reiteration over a long period of time.” Randall v. Sorrell, 126 S. Ct. 2479 at 2489 (2006) (declining to overrule Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)). Additionally, if our "leaders" aren't bold enough to show some backbone in time of crisis, then the courts should stand on precedent. I am not really going to go back into this since I have run on about how Heller could and should stick with precedent and just clarify the Miller decision in terms which even idiots can understand.

Anyway, with the exception of Constitutional Monarchy, these systems require some form of personal responsibility and civic mindedness. Constitutional Monarchy realises that the masses are peasants and do indeed need a nanny state. fortunately, Constitutional Monarchists practise noblesse oblige meaning we have a requirement for social responsibility. We can come up with elections, but there are institutions, such as the landed aristocracy which keeps some form of mob rule under wraps. Also, the landed aristocracy are able to keep land use issues under control, which is sort of sad given the interregnum we have had has led to urban sprawl.

Fortunately, we may have a individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment and I can set up my private army and start my own duchy. I mean my Royal Pennsylvania militia will be very well trained if that is what "well regulated" means. And if Justice Scalia is correct that militias are outside of government control, then we are perfectly justified in setting up a Constitutional Monarchy.

I wonder if Prince Charles will accept our invitation to be King.