The Glorious Revolution and an American Monarchy

Currently, while the House of Windsor is considered sovereign, that sovereignty is within the limits imposed by Parliament under the Glorious Revolution, which cemented Protestant rule in England, thus ending the religious civil wars of that era with both the Catholic James II and the Roundheads. The Hanoverians were thus recruited to restore the monarchy. 

These arrangements are by tradition rather than a written constitution. They include the retention of royal properties, an annual appropriation to maintain the Royal family, titular head of state both Kingdom and Commonwealth and the permission of the Prime Minister to form a government that is actually elected by the people of partisan majorities or coalitions. The Monarch is then given the responsibility of endorsing the program of the majority in the Queen's Speech. 

I find that last bit objectionable. A true sovereign should have the right to designate the actions by the views of the ruling party as such rather than as Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, the Prime Minister should speak for his or herself. Any remarks by Her Majesty must hers alone, including arguments against any actions of the majority which violate the rights of the citizens of the realm. She is also the secular head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith, the last bit being a Papal grant that was retained as a title.

In former times, the Monarchy ruled with the sanction of the Church. Before the rights of the nobility, and later the people, were laid out in Magna Carta, the Catholic Church was the main check on the exercise of royal power. This had been true since the conversion of Clovis and subsequent coronation. In ancient times, monarchs served as gods in the name of the local pantheon, although the period of democracy in Athens and in the Roman Republic, as well as the revolution due to the invasion of the Sea Peoples, which ended the Bronze Age overthrew the god-kings from all nations but Egypt.

The Glorious Revolution displaced the Church as the arbiter of sovereignty, thus ending the proclivity of kings to make war and sects to declare revolutions in the name of religion. Even then, and until recent actions having to do with the descendants of Prince William, Catholics were denied the dynastic right to rule. The implications of this for the title of Defender of the Faith have not been considered.

I would argue that the constitutional legitimacy of the monarchy as head of State (but not government) should be vested in the Anglican Church, not the representatives of the people. The end result would be the same, except in bad behavior, where monarchs could be deposed.

This theory of royal sovereignty allows the creation of an American monarchy. While the Constitution does not allow the issuance of royal and noble titles or the provision of subsidies to the Crown, royalty could still be conferred by the Episcopal Church.  Unification with the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches would add legitimacy. Greater still would be unification including an American Catholic Patriarch, provided the bishops were appointed locally rather than being appointed by the Holy See.

Why bring this up? Prince Harry has become an American resident married to an American citizen whose child is entitled to dual citizenship as well. In essence, we have our own royal. The COVID concert broadcasted last night included his participation. He has become our American Prince. The Episcopal Archbishop of Washington would be within his rights to crown him King under the theory outlined above. Indeed, he may be more popular here than the House of Windsor is back home.

Questions of Citizen Sovereignty

The first question is sovereignty as it relates to sovereign citizens and tribal nations. Sovereign citizen movement, which is primarily found in the western states, wants the federal government to leave them alone. This includes their rights to bear arms and the desire to no longer pay grazing fees. 

As I have written before, the question of the right to bear arms is seen by sovereign citizens as a protection against government intrusion, to wit, a right of revolution. 

Part of this ideology was the attempted insurrection on January 6th, which was undertaken largely by members of the militia movement. While most of the insurrectionists believed they were making a political statement about the counting of votes, some actually desired to force the conclusion they desired by intimidation. 

They realized that this was not just a theoretical proposition when their attempt to intimidate members of Congress was met with gunfire. At this point, they realized the seriousness of their attempt of revolution and left the field of battle, fading back into the crowd, although their desire for self-glorification, which is a characteristic of all bullies, led them to video their actions, for which they are paying the price.

Some of the planners likely had a greater awareness of what was being attempted. To their bemusement, the foot soldiers in the struggle were not up to the task. These individuals will likely face charges of seditious conspiracy, which under the Fourteenth Amendment may lead to their expulsion from Congress. 

Likewise, should Citizen Trump manage to repeat the path of Grover Cleveland and win another term, he will find that an objection to his election will be made when the votes are counted and that this objection will require a two-thirds vote of each house to overcome. While he can certainly run for president from a jail cell (it has been done before), it would be a futile endeavor in light of these legalities.

The same amendment essentially viciates the right to bear arms against the government. Regardless of the wording of the Second Amendment, the Fourteenth destroys its application as a constitutional right to revolt. There is simply no right to possess weapons in furtherance of this intent. Doing so explicitly invites seizure of said arms.

The second demand of sovereign citizens is the right to hold land without paying fees. This is a claim that arises out of ignorance of the rights of native peoples. Fees are collected in trust as a form of rental on tribal land. For this reason, fees must be collected. The alternative is to revoke any and all permits for occupation of land either held in trust or ceded as party of treaties with tribal peoples.

To put it bluntly, should the Federal Government not be used as an intermediary, the Fifth Amendment rights of tribal nations dictate that the possession of these lands to their original owners. Those who currently lease property from the government must instead lease it from the tribal nation for whom the land is held in trust or from whom it was seized. While many ranchers could either pay rent to tribal governments or purchase such lands fee simple, they enjoy no unilateral rights of ownership absent such arrangements.

Should current tribal arrangements be voided, there is justification for their exclusion from state government and the recognition of their rights to statehood for purposes of representation in the Congress and the Electoral College. Indeed, given the machinations of White Citizens in western states, such a solution would be more than just. In such cases, tenants could vote as citizens abroad in the state of their choosing using mail-in ballots, but not as residents of tribal lands.

This last bit can be taken as an absurd argument regarding voter suppression, but it has some validity, including the rights of tribes to administer elections within their territories within the states which contain tribal land, rather than through the governmental structures that would seek to deny their right to vote.