American friends, looking on from Canada I am happy about yesterday's widespread peaceful protests against your incipient dictator. But why "No Kings"?
Here in Canada, many of us are quite happy to have a king -- our constitutional monarch, King Charles III, who recently visited Canada to open Parliament, as a gesture very much designed to show that we are different from the USA.
As an anarchist, I value having a Head of State who has zero coercive power.
But I am guessing that when you Americans think of kings, you have poor old George III in mind, and that trouble he gave you with taxation without representation and all that rot?
You have figurehead monarch who has had no actual power for SO long; the "No Kings" is a reference to the American Revolution and the revolt against a British King with real power. BUT, historic references aside, I think "No Dictators" would have been a better choice of slogan.
@ChipmunkErnie I think it's actually a better slogan, referencing the history and in particular the foundation of the country. "No dictators" would be too generic.
@Elessar But dictator is more accurate. You have to remember that when Americans say king they have in mind an almost mythical creature. They think that George III personally demanded taxes from the colonists. Of course he did no such thing. English monarchs hadn't had tax raising powers for at least a century at that time.
My worry is that because of this they will fail to see that the real danger is not the establishment of a hereditary monarchy but the establishment of serial dictatorship.
A "King" is much more than a head of state (with or without real power). A king is someone born of a royal bloodline. A kind is someone who is "better" than you or I because we are commoners.
Thomas Jefferson, in his first "truth" of our Declaration of Independence was speaking directly to the House of Windsor when he said:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ...
Admittedly it took quite some time to adjust our own laws to this reality and we are still working on implementation, but the concept is fundamental to being "American".
@ArtieKat Her son belonged to a different House apparently -- via his father I suppose? I am really not well-versed in the details of how our heads of state get to be such!
@ThePatientAnarchist I'm not an expert but I'm fairly sure of my facts on this. It was only the name change towards the end of WW1 because of anti-German sentiment in the UK
It's terse enough to be a great slogan, and it has deep historical roots in our revolution.
"In America, the rule of law is king. But where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain." -- Thomas Paine
Tяump is bending, twisting, and breaking the law for his own benefit. Our declaration of Independence contains a long list of specific complaints about the King abusing the law at the time. I'll only include the first 5 complaints; the list is long!
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
➽ He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
➽ He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
➽ He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
➽ He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
➽ He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. . . .
That is precisely why Americans have had an antipathy toward kings. Enshrined in our constitution — and even then there were concerns that someone elected President would try to become a king. George Washington set the precedent for presidential behavior being distinctly un-king like.
@BiasForAction It's a pity that the un-king like behaviour wasn't codified in your constitution. Instead it gave so much power to the president that only convention limited their actions. But now you have one who doesn't give a fig for convention.
The royal families in western countries like Canada and the UK are more symbols than politicians with actual power. King Charles isn't really a king in that sense. But still, I don't like the idea of royal families, even if they are just symbols.
I see your point.. Certainly if America were to choose something to reject in its leader, they could do better. OK. "No Liars" would be hard for any political leader.. And "No adulterers" would set the bar pretty high. But How about "No Draft dodgers" "No Bankrupts" or "No Felons"😷
Exactly . and this hypersensitive liberal lot have to be overly dramatic about anything they dont like in politics here. Hyperbole and exaggeration used in the extremes in what the whine incessantly about, whole denying the blatantly obvious issues on their side of the aisle.
To be fair, neither political side here has serving us well for decades. Inaction on serious matters is approaching crisis point.
The idea isn’t to say that kings are inherently bad, but that the US’ foundations were explicitly founded to reject the notion of how oppressive and tyrannical a kingship can be.
King is used in the sense of a dictator, a tyrant who is not subject to laws or rules. Not king in the sense of a modern constitutional monarch in democratic countries. Think pre-Magna Carta.
It’s an issue with the US left, they use a different dictionary where words and phrases have different meanings.
Like “peaceful protest” to US leftist means the right to smash doors and windows, loot and set fire to police cars.
“Freedom of speech” to a US leftist is defined as the right to throw urine into the faces of the police. Or anyone’s face if you get in their way.
“democracy” likewise has a unique meaning for US leftist, probably taken from writings of Stalin himself. For leftist it means do what they say or they will make life miserable for everyone that doesn’t go along.
So “king” and “no king” to US leftist means that no one in heaven or on earth can tell them what to do, because their authority is above God’s. They the ones who say what goes.
@Heartlander Oh stop with the generalizations. If we do start generalizing, you can say the same kinds of things about US conservatives/Republicans. "Fake news" means actual news that they don't like. "Family values" means hating people who aren't heterosexual. "Christian" somehow does not include "love your neighbour as yourself". Etc.
@ThePatientAnarchist No. I would be extremely happy if northern BC Alberta Sask Manitoba and as much as Northern Ontario as wants leaves Southern Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes to form our own republic of Western Canada. We have more options than simply jumping from one extremely corrupt nation (Canada) and joining an almost equally corrupt USA.
@ThePatientAnarchist I think the reason they chose no Kings though was to say as during the revolution in 1775 no King George Who basically was an English dictator imposing his Iron Will upon the colonists
@joe438 Yep. They literally ruled that the president is immune from the law when performing "official" functions (without defining what is "official"), which means the executive branch is above both the legislative and the judiciary itself. Hence (one reason of) the protests.
@Elessar only for official duties defined by the constitution and the laws passed by Congress. If he steps outside of the laws or the constitution, he’s not protected and he can be prosecuted.
A king can just make new laws. Trump can’t. The three branches checking each other are still in effect, although I think we all agree that it’s not a finely oiled machine these days.
@joe438 There's no mention of what constitutes an official act in the ruling, that's purely up to our interpretation. And besides, the exact point of granting immunity is to exempt someone from the consequences of breaking the law: if stepping out of the law lost you protection you wouldn't be immune at all, so there wouldn't have been this ruling to begin with.
A king can just make new laws. Trump can’t.
He's bypassed also that restriction with executive orders. Whether it's codified law, an executive order or a memo becomes a negligible difference if it's never contested. Granted he's not the only president who used those, but he uses them extensively for this purpose.
The three branches checking each other are still in effect, although I think we all agree that it’s not a finely oiled machine these days.
I don't think so, no. They were broken before and now they're completely shattered.
