An extremely high profile and highly significant "Establishment clause" case to be heard by SCOTUS on Wednesday (2/27/19)

I don’t think Charles will be taking over.

It’s mostly that they already want to leave but have fondness for Elizabeth.

Whatever monarch or even President comes next (if constitutional reform is called for), there isn’t really anyone who could replace her.

Canadians don’t even cut white pines…in case the queen needs them as the center beam for her navy. They are getting huge too now…after all of these years waiting.

If the Queen passed today, what would prevent Charles from assuming the throne?

Not so. They have an outsized influence on American politics.

I think he knows he wouldn’t be too well received as monarch by the UK public, whereas William absolutely would be.

I’m guessing he either abdicates immediately or only takes the throne for a short-period before passing it on.

But if he really wants it, there’s nothing to stop him from doing so.

I didn’t realize Charles was that unpopular.

The whole Diana thing didn’t do him any favors.

He’s not widely hated, just not generally liked. Camilla even less so.

I was in Canada when Prince Harry got married and the Canadians I spoke to seemed a lot more interested in it and indeed the Royal Family in general than I have ever been.

Americans are also interested in the Royal Family. Diana’a death ruled the media for a month.

If that’s the determining factor, “we” are more into Russian collusion. :sunglasses:

1 Like

Doubtful the monarchy is quite popular in Canada mostly because it eliminates the creation of a executive office. (If Canadian hate anything its politics)

By adhering to the monarchical principle we avoid one defect inherent in the Constitution of the United States. By the election of the president by a majority and for a short period, he never is the sovereign and chief of the nation. He is never looked up to by the whole people as the head and front of the nation. He is at best but the successful leader of a party. This defect is all the greater on account of the practice of reelection. During his first term of office he is employed in taking steps to secure his own reelection, and for his party a continuance of power. We avoid this by adhering to the monarchical principle—the sovereign whom you respect and love. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to have that principle recognized so that we shall have a sovereign who is placed above the region of party—to whom all parties look up; who is not elevated by the action of one party nor depressed by the action of another; who is the common head and sovereign of all

  • John A MacDonald.

creation of a President would completely change the balance of power in Canada and Provinces. Since the whole government is based around the executive office being completely non political.

Nothing but if Charles want to keep his family dynasty alive the best thing would be to pass it onto his more popular son.

The Modern Monarchy is no longer about leadership in term of government but in term of national identity like a mascot.

Then again the prez is not elected by a majority here and how does one who has government power remain non political?

The head of state of Canada is Governor General her job is signing paperwork, meeting people, and throwing dinner parties that is it.Her sole job is to represent Canada. The office of executive is by design non political it only uses it authority when absolutely needed. Let say Justin Trudeau tries to subvert constitutional he is simply replaced by the Governor General.

The government is run by the Prime Minster and their cabinet who are all elected MP (Member of the House of Representatives in American terms)

By not actually exerting their authority.

The Queen does as the PM tells her to do. But in theory, the powers are hers, not the PM’s.

Potentially it could act as a check on Parliament/PM if they ever over-step, but it would cause an instant crisis.

The crown is like the final safeguard keeping the government from following the rules. in the U.S that safeguard is the American people but the system created to do so makes it almost impossible.

but I can understand the distrust of giving people a large amount of power and asking them not to use it. when coming from the American system where all three branches of government are completely controlled by party loyalty.

And built to inherently oppose eachother.

Theoretically Parliament could strip all citizens of pretty much all rights overnight by a simple majority vote, that’s all it takes to effect constitutional changes here. But they don’t, and haven’t.

For all it’s faults i’m glad to live under a parliamentary system rather than a US style Republic. Even when everything is going to ■■■■ it still functions. Mostly.

Those challenging the cross say they want to make clear that they aren’t against veterans or veterans memorials. Fred Edwords, a longtime official with the American Humanist Association, says they just don’t think it’s right to leave the impression that only Christian soldiers are being celebrated.

Clearly, they are against war memorials. The last time a case went to the Supreme Court like this, the cross was ordered to stay, but was stolen (and probably destroyed) ten days later.

Not that I follow British royalty at all, but my impression is that it’s the Camilla factor that weighs the most on Charles’ image. He abandoned a storybook-style princess in Diana. She was an attractive person beyond just her looks. He dumped her for a woman who gives the appearance and demeanor of the wicked stepmother. I wouldn’t be surprised if many Brits see him as contributing to her death (at some level, not directly).

Let Charles get his name on the books as king for a day. Then he can pass it to William and Kate and the throne will be beloved again. And then that king can reign for 50 years.

As for the SCOTUS case that this thread was created for …

If SCOTUS doesn’t outright squash the Humanist’s case, I’ll be deeply disappointed.

I am NOT confident that I will be happy once the case is ruled.