Senate Approval

Simon Conway on WHO Radio was talking about this on Monday. I didn’t have an opportunity to call in or otherwise voice my thoughts on the subject since I was driving at the time.

Simon was comparing the United States to Great Britain. When there is an election for a Prime Minister, the head of government, the next day they get to pick their Cabinet ministers and the day after they get down to business of governing.

This is not the same in the United States. We elect our President, the head of state and government, and then the they get to pick their Cabinet secretaries. But these must be approved by the Senate. This can be a long process and made even longer if the Senate is controlled by an opposition party.

When the framers of our Constitution wrote these rules they had fled from Great Britain and other European monarchies. A problem at the time was the King was still very much involved in politics at the time. And thus could have yes-men picked for minsters of government.

Our founders wanted to have a check and balance on that power. So although the President is the head of the Executive branch, his appointments must be confirmed by the Senate.

Now of course at the time, the Senate was meant to represent the States in government. They were appointed by the state legislatures or governors and not elected by the people. That was for the House of Representatives.

We have since altered our Constitution and made the Senate also elected by the people. But I think this was a mistake for our Federal Republic. It should still be in control of the States.

This is just why the United States does it differently than Great Britain. Maybe we should have a new Amendment that removes the Senate approval for appointees of the President.

The Queen is Dead. Long live the King.

Queen Elizabeth II has passed away and the world mourns her loss with England. For many of us we have only know a Queen being on the throne in Buckingham Palace. And now there is a King.

For many years I personally believed that the English monarchy would die if Charles became King. And I hoped that Elizabeth would out live her son so the crown would pass to Prince William instead of his father.

Queen Elizabeth leaves behind a 70 year legacy of rule. The longest ever for a British monarch. And she was a faithful servant of Christ and a good shepherd for the English people.

Now her son reigns in her stead as Charles III. A poor choice in a regal name given how the two previous English Kings ruled with that name.

But I am hopeful here, after a few chats with some of my English friends. They are hopeful as well for King Charles III and his reign. And we all just must accept the changes that are happening and will happen in His Majesty’s government.

Maybe third time is a charm for the Kings of England who go by the name of Charles.

One thing is for certain. King Charles III will not be on the throne as long as his beloved mother. At 73 years old, he is already in the sunset years of his life and the next monarch will also be a King. Perhaps ruling as William IV if my counting is correct.

I could very well see 3 English monarchs in my lifetime if the monarchy survives.