> The US does not elect a monarch.

It is a constitutional monarchy with an elected, time-limited king.

Monarchies generally have (and had) lots of checks on the king's power. Not necessarily the kinds of checks we would like, of course. The rights of the nobility were well-protected, the rights of landless commoners were not.

▲

Tadpole9181 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

No, it's really not. The Executive does not have these powers in the constitution. They made it up and assigned it to themselves by loosely interpreting things how they wanted.

Executive orders are memos, not laws. The President has no power for legislation or budget or tariffing. We're supposed to require legislative review of any emergency actions, like using the military.

▲

noitpmeder 3 days ago | parent [-]

It doesn't matter what the law says if no one will enforce it. The law is whatever is currently being enforced.

	▲	mulmen 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This is what’s so dangerous about the game the Republicans are playing. They are perpetuating a belief that American society is broken by breaking it themselves. If the blinders ever come off their base the violent impulses will be directed at them the same way they were directed at Mike Pence. It’s phenomenally stupid to wind up an ignorant mob and think you can control it. The only way to maintain control is to make the mob angrier and angrier but there’s always a breaking point.
	▲	3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

dgfitz 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Somehow you’re wrong somewhere between two and 3 times in one sentence.

> It is a constitutional monarchy with an elected, time-limited king.

> Constitutional monarchy, also known as limited monarchy, parliamentary monarchy or democratic monarchy, is a form of monarchy in which the monarch exercises their authority in accordance with a constitution and is not alone in making decisions.[1][2][3] Constitutional monarchies differ from absolute monarchies (in which a monarch is the only decision-maker) in that they are bound to exercise powers and authorities within limits prescribed by an established legal framework. A constitutional monarch in a parliamentary democracy is a hereditary symbolic head of state (who may be an emperor, king or queen, prince or grand duke) who mainly performs representative and civic roles but does not exercise executive or policy-making power.[4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy

	▲	peterfirefly an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> but does not exercise executive or policy-making power This is largely but not entirely true. It's also largely true by convention/Realpolitik ("try and exercise your powers and see how long you stay king!") and not by law. > absolute monarchies (in which a monarch is the only decision-maker) The monarch was essentially never the only decision maker in absolute monarchies. Nominally, yes. In practice, not at all. Going against too many established interested was seriously bad for the monarch's health.

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]