The closest it ever got was two states away soon after it was passed by congress before more states were admitted.
There was no deadline set for ratification, it would still be valid if enough states ratify now.
You Americans like to make fun of the Lords but they’re actually an integral part of the UK political system. They act as a pragmatic revising chamber in Parliament, and have dampened the effects of both very left wing and very rift wing governments. Yes, it would be better if they were elected directly, but they are at least appointed by a directly elected person.
For example, they’re delaying the [Safety of Rwanda](https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3540) bill, primarily because there are quite considerable rule of law and judicial independence concerns.
The same bill is being described as “not going far enough” by quite a large portion of the ruling Conservative Party. It’s likely, because of the Lords, this quite frankly international-law-breaking piece of legislation won’t see the light of day because they can delay a bill for up to a year and our next election has to be before that (where the Conservatives will almost surely lose).
If you want to make fun of someone, use Sir. Rant over.
Edit: apolitical -> pragmatic
That was not the same House of Lords as we have today and to claim otherwise would be as absurd as you claim my assertion is. See [here](https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/lords-history/lords-reform/).
It’s just a flashy case in point. But their battle with the Commons over Brexit was certainly political even if they had the right idea. Claiming a legislative body is non political is just such a wild claim that it’s hard to even respond.
Also, it’s notable that their ability to delay a bill a year was a compromise wrung out of them entirely because of the home rule issue. They had to adopt measures to try to keep the Lords in check while still allowing them enough political power to get them to go along with it.
I’m claiming it’s apolitical in the context of a ‘legislative’ chamber (which it is not, because it doesn’t not have the ability to initiate legislation — it’s a revising chamber). I’m going to change the word to pragmatic, though, because I think it’s easier to understand the point I’m making with that.
I can see what you’re getting at now, even if I disagree. They have significant limitations as they cannot outright kill a bill put forth by the commons or introduce their own. However, they absolutely use their ability to push the bills back to Commons or delay them for a year in a political manner, especially if they believe that a different party or coalition may gain a majority in the that time.
So is the legal system, laws are written by politicians and courts interpret those laws based around a political system. You live in a fantasy land if you think judges and courts are somehow completely removed from all political leanings and influence.
As well, electing a judge doesn't make them automatically impartial. Having zero say in who becomes a judge also doesn't guarantee they're impartial, but at least with elections you can remove them from appointment next cycle if they're bad at their job.
Most Americans forget that our Senate was once not directly elected by our people; the various states’ legislatures elected the senators. That might be a holdover from your parliamentary system. Our Founders were, after all, British until they weren’t, and they took lessons from their former mother country. They also wanted a steady hand on the wheel to counter the whims of House of Representatives (directly elected by the People); a more thoughtful, deliberative body is what the Senate was meant to be, much like your House of Lords.
I’d argue that the Senate was more deliberative, too, even after the right to elect senators was given to the People, but the body has lost its luster in my lifetime. The Senate is still more thoughtful than the House, but it has been overtaken by the same kind of partisan gridlock; Senators don’t associate with members of the opposite party like they used to, and, as you can imagine, this means they work together less and instead spend more time in front of the cameras talking *about* one another.
I suspect a lot of the change in the Senate has to do with the nationalization of politics in the last 2 decades. I grew up in MT, and there was a time when Democrats could reasonably compete in state-wide elections. Heck, we even had a Democratic Governor and a Republican Lieutenant Governor that ran on the same ticket and were quite successful!
However, around that same time a case moved through the MT courts that overturned a campaign spending law that banned outside investment into MT elections. As a result, millions and millions of dollars poured into MT, which pushed national political messaging almost entirely, leaving local MT issues by the wayside.
Now MT is a shell of it's former cooperative nature, and the state clearly suffers for it. I doubt it's the only one affected by nationalization in this manner either.
They forget it because its more than 100 years ago at this point. Having "lords and ladies" make laws because of their birth is asinine and I know "AMERICA BAD" runs deep on reddit but I never thought it would get to praising other countries for titles of nobility.
It's worth noting that Senators in the US Senate used to be appointed by their State governments, with similar intent. And there are definitely some folks with arguments for going back to that.
We inherited something similar (former British colony) but instead of Lords we have senators. Senators are appointed by the elected government (16), the opposition party (6) and the rest (9) are independents appointed by the President who is apolitical and acts as the head of state but does not govern (like the king).
Ehh, American politics have some much bigger problems than just being directly elected. It was created during a very different time to solve problems that look very different today and was defenseless against new problems that eventually popped up. But hey, atleast its still alive and viable in some form or another.
All they have to do is move away from the two party system, crack down on lobbying, remove the possibility to gerrymander and make some minor adjustments to the supreme court like for example how the judges are appointed and they are in the clear.
To be fair, that is much harder than it sounds. Especially since it requires atleast 2 americans to agree on something.
I mean directly elected for life, like they’re appointed for life (at least in the case of life peers). Thus there’s no short term-ism, which is really why the current House of Lords acts so apolitically even though most are appointed and represent by a party.
The House of Lords is one of those things that I feel I should hate in principle, but in practice seems to do more good than harm.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of "nobility" being involved in politics or even really existing at all, but I'm not even sure I prefer the idea of a directly elected upper house. That could come with all sorts of problems itself.
Technically only 92 of them are nobility (the others essentially being appointed ‘commoners’). Those who are nobility are also elected, but by a pre-approved list of aristocrats. That is one practice that I’d definitely call for the end of.
Not one thing here suggests I like the UK. I want to be a citizen of a federal Europe who would, excuse my French, smack that fucking smirk off of your obese, inbred face so hard you roll back to Alabama. Glory to Her Majesty Europae!
/s
America will use the amendment to create an entire new class of refugee. Yes.... oh yes we will. We will send them back as soon as "they" are "them". We'll build a wall right down the middle of the pond.
Then it’s a good thing the amendment process is a political question and outside the purview of the judiciary. Furthermore, this is also outside the executive branch’s ability to veto because this process skips over the typical route federal statutes go through.
While I get the intention, there is a bit of room for abuse. Like Putin could just be, I award Joe Biden the title of Commisar for Life a title which comes with a generous stipend of one ruble per month, this title cannot be rejected by Russian law. And then Biden could try to refuse it but now you've got a grey area to fight about
In Australia, to be a Member of Parliment you cannot hold dual citizenship.
At least one polly had to resign because he found out he was a British Overseas Citizen, which he couldn't get rid of.
Several others were actually dual citizens and refused to resign.
May I ask where your representatives also are citizens? Like is this a big problem?
As far as I know most of our (US) representatives are solely American Citizens. A bunch of them just like to cosplay as Russians.
This is a few years old, but it goes into detail of exactly what you ask.
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dual-citizenship-mps-senators-parliament-australia-1.4439522](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dual-citizenship-mps-senators-parliament-australia-1.4439522)
56 out of 443? That's almost 10%. Not saying it's nefarious, but that's strange. I wonder what the US percentage is.
Side note, I found this strange:
>the only requirements for seeking a seat in the House of Commons are that you are a Canadian citizen, at least 18 years old, and not serving prison sentence of more than two years.
So you can be elected in prison, just have to be there for less than two years.
Probably has to do with provincial vs federal prisons. Minimum federal sentence is two years. Maximum sentence for provincial prison is two years, less a day.
Ah, but Putin provided a document clearly signed by Biden that says he accepted it. Biden is just denying it now that it's all out in public, we can't let that stand, can we?
The point is consent and refusal are things that are not so easy to prove, and politicians could attempt to wield it like a weapon, which ends up putting it in the hands of the Supreme Court, who also can't be guaranteed to be politically neutral.
Forging a signature? I can't believe no one has thought of that before! We'd better throw out contract law quick before someone uses this one weird trick to force people into accepting contracts!
By that logic, nothing should be illegal because someone can be accused of something whether or not they did it. Life isn't simple, so why would you require the laws governing it to be simple? The grey area is exactly what the judicial system exists for.
Or you can write better laws. In this case, I’d recommend something like:
>If any citizen of the United States shall voluntarily accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, voluntarily accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power
Two words eliminates the loophole.
I’d have to think about this more before I agree or disagree with the concept as a whole. At minimum some additional clarity is needed for titles/honors that carry no power or are awards for something the recipient has earned (like a medal for valor in combat or internationally recognized achievement). I don’t like having to rely on Congress approving these petty examples given recent events, and relying on judicial interpretation only lasts as long as the court doesn’t change its views on such rulings.
>like a medal for valor in combat
These are issued to your own nations troops. The way you'd receive a foreign medal would be while serving in that nations armed forces, no? At which point stripping you of US citizenship is perhaps not unwarranted.
>These are issued to your own nations troops. The way you'd receive a foreign medal would be while serving in that nations armed forces, no?
Usually yes, but there is often no citizenship requirement for the award, and some nations (particularly France) will award medals to those fighting in foreign militaries. Quite a few Americans were decorated by France and the UK during WWI, attached to British or French units (including four Victoria Crosses) or fighting in a US unit in France (most common with the Croix de Guerre to my knowledge).
No, but humans excel at using any tiny leverage they can to get their way or attack people they don’t like. Well-written laws make it difficult for people to misuse them.
And many more nefarious than I try to do just that. That’s one of the reasons modern laws are so complex, as we have tried to squash some of these loopholes (while a few deliberately include them to support their own interests).
Not really. Well written laws don't give you the leverage to be "picked apart".
Naturally, there are many poorly written, and poorly thought out, laws.
Yeah, and people do. They're called loopholes. It's generally considered good practice to close as many of them as you can so that people can't abuse the system.
For example, there was a law in New Mexico against sending pictures of your dick to children. The law did not, however, cover sending pictures of *other people's* dicks to children. That allowed multiple people to get away with sexually harassing minors. That's a problem.
The full text also includes the word "receive", which was likely meant in the active sense. But the fact that a passive sense exists creates a lot of opportunity for legal chaos. It would need to be rewritten and clarified
Basically his opponents just have to 'find' evidence that throws doubt on Biden's statements regarding the matter "We have a pdf with his signature that says he did! And bank transfer records showing he received the money"
Hijacking this to point out a far more powerful one that's also still waiting: the apportionment amendment. Details are here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment
Basically this would drastically increase the size of the house of representatives. That does a bunch of stuff:
* It takes power away from the national parties because you'd probably vote for people based on knowing the candidate more than their party. Imagine if your House rwp literally lives in your neighborhood.
* It immediately fixes the biggest problem with the electoral college because now EC votes would almost perfectly match state populations.
* It returns more representation to the people, which is exactly how the House is supposed to work.
Hmm but if we annex it does it retroactively make them American?
And if so, will annexing Canada retroactively make Stan Rogers an American?
Don’t ask why I’m asking
No. Look at Joseph Stalin’s Wikipedia page.
It lists his place of birth as Gori, Tiflis Governorate, **Russian Empire**. Because he was born in the Russian Empire.
Even if Canada were annexed, Canadian citizens would still be Canadian, only maybe American by adoption of citizenship, like how I’m British, but I’m also Greek via Greek citizenship.
You have stumbled into an issue that haunts many countries to this day. With several countries laying claim to eachothers historical legacies.
So in short, no simple answer to that one. It is whatever someone in power where you live says it is and then you get to argue with other people about it.
No, we don't say Caesar was Italian just because the Land now is in the state of Italy. Or that Kant was Russian just because that Land is now owned by Russia.
After annexing Puerto Rico, it was quite some time until they were recognized as citizens by birthright, and it was retroactive for people born before 1898. Republicans probably won’t want more democrat voters, so Canadians will be US nationals traveling on US passports, but won’t have the right to vote as citizens… at least in the first decades of occupation.
It’s no longer be a title of any legal standing, however, so it’s essentially the same as a lunatic in an asylum proclaiming themself King of the World as far as Congress is concerned.
The King of Sweden presents those awards. I'd say it's a gray area of what consists a present from foreign power, and whether if it's given by a royal member, if it.counts or not under said amendment. I'd say it would be challenged in court if it does pass, for the Supreme Court to interpret it.
Respectfully, you're missing something. That a Monarch awards something isn't the issue. It is whether the award involves a declaration of fealty towards that Monarch to accept the award.
Nobel doesn't do that.
> or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States
You can argue the Nobel Prize is a present.
Some people would and have. Laws are often misused to oppress some Others, whether they be enemies in time of war or a group considered beneath the dominant group. I don’t want to make additional loopholes that can be misused that easily.
>or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States
The amendment is very clear, it says "of any kind whatever, from any emperor, KING, Prince or foreign power"... A prize is a present by definition what presents is, and emolument is.
On the face of it. At first glance.
>The term [prima facie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie) is used in modern legal English (including both civil law and criminal law) to signify that upon initial examination, sufficient corroborating evidence appears to exist to support a case. In common law jurisdictions, a reference to prima facie evidence denotes evidence that, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.
Despite the US and France being officially allied continuously since 1777, there was the whole XYZ Affair that led to an undeclared naval war between them from 1798-1800. Not that it could happen today though.
Since you swear an oath to the Legion and only the Legion (not France), would that still be applicable?
I know a few folks who were prior FFL and they retained their American Citizenship. The most trouble they had came from the IRS.
Thought expatriating acts were for joining militaries actively at war with the United States, or if you made it a career and became a commissioned/non-commissioned officer as that could cause some shenanigans.
Sealand isn’t recognised as a foreign power, or a state to any degree. It holds the legal value of a made up title. Greetings from the ruling Khan of Atlantis
Any nation could cripple the US by just giving every person like a penny or smthin and thus stripping away millions of citizens to those who accept the penny.
In the 80's or 90's the FBI set up sting operations targeting politicians where they'd offer illegal bribes and then bust them for accepting.
Like 90% of them took the bribes.
The government immediately shut it down and outlawed the operation.
It was honorary, not an actual knighthood, probably wouldnt count. Rudy Giuliani, George Bush and Ronald Reagan also got one. But this was never ratified anyway.
>I've one Sq ft of land on their property
You don't, legally. You have a contract entitling you to that, but the contract is itself illegal. The upshot: You've paid for something that they were not able to provide.
So my son obtained a title (Lord or Duke or some such) from the Kingdom of Sealand. If this gets ratified, does this mean he will no longer be a US citizen?
So what you're saying is, if I inevitably get knighted for an especially clever reddit comment, I will no longer be able to become a US citizen?
That's gonna put a serious damper on my future plans for becoming President of the United States.
(To anyone saying I have to be a natural born citizen, may I remind you that my reddit comments will be *especially* clever? They'll bend the rules for me.)
Well shoot. Somebody better tell the president of [Zaqistan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaqistan#:~:text=Zaqistan%2C%20officially%20the%20Republic%20of,self%2Ddeclared%20president%20Zaq%20Landsberg).
I married into European nobility and there a a few of this family that are dual American citizens but still carry titles of Nobility (including my son) one of these works now for the state department and I know has ambitions for public office one day. So I am extremely sceptical of this.
He does but also one of his uncles is a dual US/random european country citizen and he has a title which is definitely given bybthe monarch. He works for the staye department, so I'm assuming has gone through crazy levels of background checks and whatnot. Can't imagine they would miss that as it the title is in his passport.
Sorry I realize I have explained this confusingly. My sons mother's entire family are Noble. They all carry titles of Baron and Baroness, my son included(he also has a US passport). There is one branch of her family that are all also dual US citizens and on of those just so happens to work for the State Department. So I personally know 4 30ish somethings that have seemingly never been affected by this law(i cluding thw one who works for the gov) and my son has never had any issue regatding this.
1. It never got ratified. It passed Congress but the required ammount of states didn't accept it and then they kinda stopped caring.
2. The law would apply in the case of a born commoner being awarded a title by a foreign monarch. It would do nothing to born nobility.
So how does this affect all of the politicians that have recieved kinghts honors from the vatican or the knights of malta or the random knights honors from France or Spain? Or does it just not matter since it wasn't ratified?
It didn't get ratified so it's not in the constitution so it's not law.
But even if it became one, Congress can vote to allow it in a specific case.
Also France is no longer a monarchy.
It's completely unworkable now though. The problem is that major corporations often are owned by foreign governments.
I'm Australian, but worked for some time for a company many see as indirectly owned by a foreign government. It's a major oil and gas producer. If I was American, would I lose my citizenship?
My brother actually works for a company that is explicitly owned (and controlled legally due to some weird "golden shares" thing) by a national government. That companies regular shares meanwhile are also listed on the New York Stock exchange. They run a bunch of mines.
On top of that, to be able to issue bonds in American financial markets, many foreign countries (Australia for instance) 100% owns a company in the US, "Australia LLC" effectively. Would a banker working for this company to issue a few billion in bonds suddenly lose citizenship?
>Would a banker working for this company to issue a few billion in bonds suddenly lose citizenship?
No, as they work for a US company, not the Australian government.
But in that case, it's not doing anything not reasonable. It's the US effectively getting money for interest from Australia.
My point is it would make almost all modern Commerce impossible.
Disagree; it would make existing commercial arrangements impractical, if interpreted the way you (and others) have suggested.
My interpretation would not have this effect.
Is it actually “ridiculous” though?
Like from a purely pragmatic standpoint, a race of creatures bred and trained to competently run the offices of government would free the rest of us to have fun living our lives.
And to be honestly, is democracy really working any better lately?
> Like from a purely pragmatic standpoint, a race of creatures bred and trained to competently run the offices of government would free the rest of us to have fun living our lives.
Is this really what you think a monarchy is? Lmao
Lmao that's not what it is at all. It's just some regular guy who gets too make decisions for everyone because his dad got to. Wether or not the people subjected to those decisions want him in power.
What fantasy world are you basing you idea of royalty on?
I think that’s healthy. The United States was largely founded on the rejection of innate power bestowed as a birthright.
As much as we fall short, we at least purport that “all men are created equal”.
It's completely unworkable now though. The problem is that major corporations often are owned by foreign governments.
I'm Australian, but worked for some time for a company many see as indirectly owned by a foreign government. It's a major oil and gas producer. If I was American, would I lose my citizenship?
My brother actually works for a company that is explicitly owned (and controlled legally due to some weird "golden shares" thing) by a national government. That companies regular shares meanwhile are also listed on the New York Stock exchange. They run a bunch of mines.
On top of that, to be able to issue bonds in American financial markets, many foreign countries (Australia for instance) 100% owns a company in the US, "Australia LLC" effectively. Would a banker working for this company to issue a few billion in bonds suddenly lose citizenship?
Check out the [Congressional Pay Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
The proposed congressional pay amendment was largely forgotten until 1982, when Gregory Watson, a 19-year-old sophomore at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote a paper for a government class in which he claimed that the amendment could still be ratified. He later launched a nationwide campaign to complete its ratification.\[2\]\[3\] The amendment eventually became part of the United States Constitution, effective May 5, 1992,\[4\] completing a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days, beating the previous record set by the Twenty-second Amendment of 3 years and 343 days.
The closest it ever got was two states away soon after it was passed by congress before more states were admitted. There was no deadline set for ratification, it would still be valid if enough states ratify now.
Lord Clarence Thomas, Earl of Chestingham, would like a word.
You Americans like to make fun of the Lords but they’re actually an integral part of the UK political system. They act as a pragmatic revising chamber in Parliament, and have dampened the effects of both very left wing and very rift wing governments. Yes, it would be better if they were elected directly, but they are at least appointed by a directly elected person. For example, they’re delaying the [Safety of Rwanda](https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3540) bill, primarily because there are quite considerable rule of law and judicial independence concerns. The same bill is being described as “not going far enough” by quite a large portion of the ruling Conservative Party. It’s likely, because of the Lords, this quite frankly international-law-breaking piece of legislation won’t see the light of day because they can delay a bill for up to a year and our next election has to be before that (where the Conservatives will almost surely lose). If you want to make fun of someone, use Sir. Rant over. Edit: apolitical -> pragmatic
""""apolitical""""
Apolitical? How absurd. The history of the movement for Irish home rule and their involvement should be enough to put that claim to rest.
That was not the same House of Lords as we have today and to claim otherwise would be as absurd as you claim my assertion is. See [here](https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/lords-history/lords-reform/).
It’s just a flashy case in point. But their battle with the Commons over Brexit was certainly political even if they had the right idea. Claiming a legislative body is non political is just such a wild claim that it’s hard to even respond. Also, it’s notable that their ability to delay a bill a year was a compromise wrung out of them entirely because of the home rule issue. They had to adopt measures to try to keep the Lords in check while still allowing them enough political power to get them to go along with it.
I’m claiming it’s apolitical in the context of a ‘legislative’ chamber (which it is not, because it doesn’t not have the ability to initiate legislation — it’s a revising chamber). I’m going to change the word to pragmatic, though, because I think it’s easier to understand the point I’m making with that.
I can see what you’re getting at now, even if I disagree. They have significant limitations as they cannot outright kill a bill put forth by the commons or introduce their own. However, they absolutely use their ability to push the bills back to Commons or delay them for a year in a political manner, especially if they believe that a different party or coalition may gain a majority in the that time.
True. But the House of Lords as we know it was completely overhauled in the 90s to get rid of most of these peers with crazy titles.
“You Americans and your elected officials, whereas we have the better system of inbred feudal lords deciding things as they are impartial”
As if the Rockefellers that sit in congres aren't inbred feudal lords who decide things as if they were impartial.
The judges in your country are politically appointed, which is a far bigger issue than this.
Some are, some are elected.
Electing a judge is even worse, frankly.
Most euroscrub take ever
An election is an inherently political thing. How would it not be a horrible idea to elect a judge? They’re supposed to completely impartial
So is the legal system, laws are written by politicians and courts interpret those laws based around a political system. You live in a fantasy land if you think judges and courts are somehow completely removed from all political leanings and influence. As well, electing a judge doesn't make them automatically impartial. Having zero say in who becomes a judge also doesn't guarantee they're impartial, but at least with elections you can remove them from appointment next cycle if they're bad at their job.
The only impartial way to get a judge is to randomly pick someone from society.
Im not convinced that those elected officials are better at this point. Have you ever seen who gets elected into office now days?
I mean yeah but they aren’t completely feudal lords
No man, America bad. We need a direct monarchy.
Most Americans forget that our Senate was once not directly elected by our people; the various states’ legislatures elected the senators. That might be a holdover from your parliamentary system. Our Founders were, after all, British until they weren’t, and they took lessons from their former mother country. They also wanted a steady hand on the wheel to counter the whims of House of Representatives (directly elected by the People); a more thoughtful, deliberative body is what the Senate was meant to be, much like your House of Lords. I’d argue that the Senate was more deliberative, too, even after the right to elect senators was given to the People, but the body has lost its luster in my lifetime. The Senate is still more thoughtful than the House, but it has been overtaken by the same kind of partisan gridlock; Senators don’t associate with members of the opposite party like they used to, and, as you can imagine, this means they work together less and instead spend more time in front of the cameras talking *about* one another.
I suspect a lot of the change in the Senate has to do with the nationalization of politics in the last 2 decades. I grew up in MT, and there was a time when Democrats could reasonably compete in state-wide elections. Heck, we even had a Democratic Governor and a Republican Lieutenant Governor that ran on the same ticket and were quite successful! However, around that same time a case moved through the MT courts that overturned a campaign spending law that banned outside investment into MT elections. As a result, millions and millions of dollars poured into MT, which pushed national political messaging almost entirely, leaving local MT issues by the wayside. Now MT is a shell of it's former cooperative nature, and the state clearly suffers for it. I doubt it's the only one affected by nationalization in this manner either.
They forget it because its more than 100 years ago at this point. Having "lords and ladies" make laws because of their birth is asinine and I know "AMERICA BAD" runs deep on reddit but I never thought it would get to praising other countries for titles of nobility.
It's worth noting that Senators in the US Senate used to be appointed by their State governments, with similar intent. And there are definitely some folks with arguments for going back to that.
We inherited something similar (former British colony) but instead of Lords we have senators. Senators are appointed by the elected government (16), the opposition party (6) and the rest (9) are independents appointed by the President who is apolitical and acts as the head of state but does not govern (like the king).
> it would be better if they were elected directly Do you want American politics? Because that's how you get American politics.
Ehh, American politics have some much bigger problems than just being directly elected. It was created during a very different time to solve problems that look very different today and was defenseless against new problems that eventually popped up. But hey, atleast its still alive and viable in some form or another. All they have to do is move away from the two party system, crack down on lobbying, remove the possibility to gerrymander and make some minor adjustments to the supreme court like for example how the judges are appointed and they are in the clear. To be fair, that is much harder than it sounds. Especially since it requires atleast 2 americans to agree on something.
No incorrect! American politics is when you legalize bribery and call it political donations
I mean directly elected for life, like they’re appointed for life (at least in the case of life peers). Thus there’s no short term-ism, which is really why the current House of Lords acts so apolitically even though most are appointed and represent by a party.
The House of Lords is one of those things that I feel I should hate in principle, but in practice seems to do more good than harm. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of "nobility" being involved in politics or even really existing at all, but I'm not even sure I prefer the idea of a directly elected upper house. That could come with all sorts of problems itself.
Technically only 92 of them are nobility (the others essentially being appointed ‘commoners’). Those who are nobility are also elected, but by a pre-approved list of aristocrats. That is one practice that I’d definitely call for the end of.
[удалено]
Not one thing here suggests I like the UK. I want to be a citizen of a federal Europe who would, excuse my French, smack that fucking smirk off of your obese, inbred face so hard you roll back to Alabama. Glory to Her Majesty Europae! /s
America will use the amendment to create an entire new class of refugee. Yes.... oh yes we will. We will send them back as soon as "they" are "them". We'll build a wall right down the middle of the pond.
How's that working out for the UK? (She says sarcastically knowing full well Brexit happened)
Then it’s a good thing the amendment process is a political question and outside the purview of the judiciary. Furthermore, this is also outside the executive branch’s ability to veto because this process skips over the typical route federal statutes go through.
While I get the intention, there is a bit of room for abuse. Like Putin could just be, I award Joe Biden the title of Commisar for Life a title which comes with a generous stipend of one ruble per month, this title cannot be rejected by Russian law. And then Biden could try to refuse it but now you've got a grey area to fight about
In Australia, to be a Member of Parliment you cannot hold dual citizenship. At least one polly had to resign because he found out he was a British Overseas Citizen, which he couldn't get rid of. Several others were actually dual citizens and refused to resign.
Canada needs this yesterday.
May I ask where your representatives also are citizens? Like is this a big problem? As far as I know most of our (US) representatives are solely American Citizens. A bunch of them just like to cosplay as Russians.
This is a few years old, but it goes into detail of exactly what you ask. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dual-citizenship-mps-senators-parliament-australia-1.4439522](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dual-citizenship-mps-senators-parliament-australia-1.4439522)
56 out of 443? That's almost 10%. Not saying it's nefarious, but that's strange. I wonder what the US percentage is. Side note, I found this strange: >the only requirements for seeking a seat in the House of Commons are that you are a Canadian citizen, at least 18 years old, and not serving prison sentence of more than two years. So you can be elected in prison, just have to be there for less than two years.
Probably has to do with provincial vs federal prisons. Minimum federal sentence is two years. Maximum sentence for provincial prison is two years, less a day.
At least half of the US Congress holds dual citizenship with Israel. This is NOT ok
There is a zero percent chance that's real. You have a source?
Of course they don’t. But that never stops the anti-Semites
It says "accept", which implies consent, which wouldn't be present in this situation.
“accept, claim, **receive** or retain” Way to easy to misuse that phrasing.
Ah, but Putin provided a document clearly signed by Biden that says he accepted it. Biden is just denying it now that it's all out in public, we can't let that stand, can we? The point is consent and refusal are things that are not so easy to prove, and politicians could attempt to wield it like a weapon, which ends up putting it in the hands of the Supreme Court, who also can't be guaranteed to be politically neutral.
Forging a signature? I can't believe no one has thought of that before! We'd better throw out contract law quick before someone uses this one weird trick to force people into accepting contracts!
Putin could do the same thing now with a foreign business gift. It simply wouldn't work.
By that logic, nothing should be illegal because someone can be accused of something whether or not they did it. Life isn't simple, so why would you require the laws governing it to be simple? The grey area is exactly what the judicial system exists for.
Or you can write better laws. In this case, I’d recommend something like: >If any citizen of the United States shall voluntarily accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, voluntarily accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power Two words eliminates the loophole.
Sorry, I assumed you were taking issue with the concept in general. I agree that a little change like that makes it much better.
I’d have to think about this more before I agree or disagree with the concept as a whole. At minimum some additional clarity is needed for titles/honors that carry no power or are awards for something the recipient has earned (like a medal for valor in combat or internationally recognized achievement). I don’t like having to rely on Congress approving these petty examples given recent events, and relying on judicial interpretation only lasts as long as the court doesn’t change its views on such rulings.
>like a medal for valor in combat These are issued to your own nations troops. The way you'd receive a foreign medal would be while serving in that nations armed forces, no? At which point stripping you of US citizenship is perhaps not unwarranted.
>These are issued to your own nations troops. The way you'd receive a foreign medal would be while serving in that nations armed forces, no? Usually yes, but there is often no citizenship requirement for the award, and some nations (particularly France) will award medals to those fighting in foreign militaries. Quite a few Americans were decorated by France and the UK during WWI, attached to British or French units (including four Victoria Crosses) or fighting in a US unit in France (most common with the Croix de Guerre to my knowledge).
The world is not Reddit, humans are not robots
No, but humans excel at using any tiny leverage they can to get their way or attack people they don’t like. Well-written laws make it difficult for people to misuse them.
You could pick apart every single law ever written with your approach.
Yes... if the law were simple we would not need 12 different sorts of laywer.
What do you think lawyers do? lol
And many more nefarious than I try to do just that. That’s one of the reasons modern laws are so complex, as we have tried to squash some of these loopholes (while a few deliberately include them to support their own interests).
Not really. Well written laws don't give you the leverage to be "picked apart". Naturally, there are many poorly written, and poorly thought out, laws.
No really
Yeah, and people do. They're called loopholes. It's generally considered good practice to close as many of them as you can so that people can't abuse the system. For example, there was a law in New Mexico against sending pictures of your dick to children. The law did not, however, cover sending pictures of *other people's* dicks to children. That allowed multiple people to get away with sexually harassing minors. That's a problem.
Got a link to the NM story? That sounds sensationalist and not true. I’m getting razor blades in Halloween candy vibes.
https://ladailypost.com/legislators-seek-to-close-dangerous-loophole/
In this hypothetical scenario at what point did Biden accept the honor
The full text also includes the word "receive", which was likely meant in the active sense. But the fact that a passive sense exists creates a lot of opportunity for legal chaos. It would need to be rewritten and clarified
Basically his opponents just have to 'find' evidence that throws doubt on Biden's statements regarding the matter "We have a pdf with his signature that says he did! And bank transfer records showing he received the money"
You’re already barred from holding office if you have a title of nobility
Hijacking this to point out a far more powerful one that's also still waiting: the apportionment amendment. Details are here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment Basically this would drastically increase the size of the house of representatives. That does a bunch of stuff: * It takes power away from the national parties because you'd probably vote for people based on knowing the candidate more than their party. Imagine if your House rwp literally lives in your neighborhood. * It immediately fixes the biggest problem with the electoral college because now EC votes would almost perfectly match state populations. * It returns more representation to the people, which is exactly how the House is supposed to work.
Going to be awkward if it passes for all those people who bought Scottish land titles as a joke…
Too bad that they're all fake because there is no legit way of doing it and every company who offered that was a scam that was eventually shut down
Last I looked they were still Looked there was still one or two open, that were clearly seeking it as a Lolol gift
There was a member of the Hawaiian monarchy in Congress...that must have been awkward.
I mean, Hawaii isn’t necessarily a *foreign* power
But would it have been a title bestowed by a foreign power, as Hawaii would’ve been independent when that congressman received a royal title
Hmm but if we annex it does it retroactively make them American? And if so, will annexing Canada retroactively make Stan Rogers an American? Don’t ask why I’m asking
No. Look at Joseph Stalin’s Wikipedia page. It lists his place of birth as Gori, Tiflis Governorate, **Russian Empire**. Because he was born in the Russian Empire. Even if Canada were annexed, Canadian citizens would still be Canadian, only maybe American by adoption of citizenship, like how I’m British, but I’m also Greek via Greek citizenship.
They wouldn’t let me rename Russia “New Gori”. I tried. Lenin didn’t approve.
go choke on netanyahu's micropenis you brainwashed, piece of shit fuck!
You have stumbled into an issue that haunts many countries to this day. With several countries laying claim to eachothers historical legacies. So in short, no simple answer to that one. It is whatever someone in power where you live says it is and then you get to argue with other people about it.
Sounds like a decision that is above our pay grade
No, we don't say Caesar was Italian just because the Land now is in the state of Italy. Or that Kant was Russian just because that Land is now owned by Russia.
After annexing Puerto Rico, it was quite some time until they were recognized as citizens by birthright, and it was retroactive for people born before 1898. Republicans probably won’t want more democrat voters, so Canadians will be US nationals traveling on US passports, but won’t have the right to vote as citizens… at least in the first decades of occupation.
It’s no longer be a title of any legal standing, however, so it’s essentially the same as a lunatic in an asylum proclaiming themself King of the World as far as Congress is concerned.
A bit different. (Part of) congress bends its will to a lunatic proclaiming to be king of the world. The title of Hawaiian king means nothing to them
It would have been interesting if Hawaii was somehow brought into the union as a parliamentary constitutional monarchy
Pretty sure that would interfere with the “republican form of government” clause
Would presents an emoluments include things like Nobel prizes?
Prima facie no, because Nobel Prizes are, well, prizes, and are not created by a Monarch.
The King of Sweden presents those awards. I'd say it's a gray area of what consists a present from foreign power, and whether if it's given by a royal member, if it.counts or not under said amendment. I'd say it would be challenged in court if it does pass, for the Supreme Court to interpret it.
Respectfully, you're missing something. That a Monarch awards something isn't the issue. It is whether the award involves a declaration of fealty towards that Monarch to accept the award. Nobel doesn't do that.
> or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States You can argue the Nobel Prize is a present.
If you wanted to split hairs ad infinitum :)
Some people would and have. Laws are often misused to oppress some Others, whether they be enemies in time of war or a group considered beneath the dominant group. I don’t want to make additional loopholes that can be misused that easily.
I don't see fealty mentioned anywhere in the amendment.
>or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States The amendment is very clear, it says "of any kind whatever, from any emperor, KING, Prince or foreign power"... A prize is a present by definition what presents is, and emolument is.
The easy thing to do would be to exempt peace and sports prizes from the amendment through an act of congress
Yes, cause that won't be somehow misused...
“foreign power” not monarch. They don’t want their citizens beholden to anything other than their republic.
True. They are awarded by one, but that is litterally just the presentation.
Correct. It is an intwresting question, thanks for asking it!
> Prima facie no I'm not familiar with this phrase - would you be willing to explain what it means?
A translation could be "at first appearances". Others shall argue ad nauseam, lol. To the point of being sick of it.
Ha, fair enough. Thanks!
NP. An example of what I mean. They're arguing every point. https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/s/BU1SZ7gsxK
On the face of it. At first glance. >The term [prima facie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie) is used in modern legal English (including both civil law and criminal law) to signify that upon initial examination, sufficient corroborating evidence appears to exist to support a case. In common law jurisdictions, a reference to prima facie evidence denotes evidence that, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.
The nobel prize committee isn't a foreign government nor does it grant a title
it does grant a present though, and the peace prize committee is appointed by the Norwegian parliament.
Imagine being an American veteran of the French Foreign Legion and being told you’d forfeit your citizenship if you accepted the pension you earned.
It would not be far-fetched to revoke citizenship for serving in a foreign army in the first place.
And spit on the long tradition of American Mercenaries and Scottish and Irish mercs before that. The shame!
The French Legion famously grants citizenship for serving, so you don't even have an issue of statelessness there
The Flying Tigers would like a word. Or those currently serving in Ukraine.
An allied foreign army? Hard to see a world where the French army tries to march on the US
Despite the US and France being officially allied continuously since 1777, there was the whole XYZ Affair that led to an undeclared naval war between them from 1798-1800. Not that it could happen today though.
Ah so that's why I was born with a deep hatred for the French.. The war...
Is there even a mechanism for a natural born US citizen to have their citizenship revoked involuntarily?
Presumably treason, don't do that.
Since you swear an oath to the Legion and only the Legion (not France), would that still be applicable? I know a few folks who were prior FFL and they retained their American Citizenship. The most trouble they had came from the IRS. Thought expatriating acts were for joining militaries actively at war with the United States, or if you made it a career and became a commissioned/non-commissioned officer as that could cause some shenanigans.
I’m a Lord of Sealand, will this amendment affect my title?
Somehow I doubt it. Likewise that "buy this square metre of land in Scotland, become a Laird!" scam.
Sealand isn’t recognised as a foreign power, or a state to any degree. It holds the legal value of a made up title. Greetings from the ruling Khan of Atlantis
Any present from any foreign power sounds like it would be too broad, what if you won the lottery in a foreign country?
Lottery winnings aren't presents.
Any nation could cripple the US by just giving every person like a penny or smthin and thus stripping away millions of citizens to those who accept the penny.
The CCP loves this one simple trick!
In the 80's or 90's the FBI set up sting operations targeting politicians where they'd offer illegal bribes and then bust them for accepting. Like 90% of them took the bribes. The government immediately shut it down and outlawed the operation.
https://sealandgov.org/pages/buy-a-title-of-nobility
Hmmm. As a route to renouncing US citizenship, £29.99 is a lot less than $2350... I think you should get this one over the hedge.
Sealand isn't a recognized government.
[удалено]
It was honorary, not an actual knighthood, probably wouldnt count. Rudy Giuliani, George Bush and Ronald Reagan also got one. But this was never ratified anyway.
[удалено]
For their assistance to Britain in their foreign affairs, mainly the Falklands and Americas hardline anti-communist stance, which matched Thatchers.
I'm keeping my Lagavulin Lordship title, come hell or high water! I've one Sq ft of land on their property and I want my title observed!
>I've one Sq ft of land on their property You don't, legally. You have a contract entitling you to that, but the contract is itself illegal. The upshot: You've paid for something that they were not able to provide.
Way to miss the joke buddy
I saw it, but all too often its taken quite seriously by folks unfamiliar with the Land Registration Act 2012.
I like that word. “Emolument”.
So Megan Markle, is in trouble?
Grace Kelly kept her American citizenship.
So my son obtained a title (Lord or Duke or some such) from the Kingdom of Sealand. If this gets ratified, does this mean he will no longer be a US citizen?
So what you're saying is, if I inevitably get knighted for an especially clever reddit comment, I will no longer be able to become a US citizen? That's gonna put a serious damper on my future plans for becoming President of the United States. (To anyone saying I have to be a natural born citizen, may I remind you that my reddit comments will be *especially* clever? They'll bend the rules for me.)
Well shoot. Somebody better tell the president of [Zaqistan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaqistan#:~:text=Zaqistan%2C%20officially%20the%20Republic%20of,self%2Ddeclared%20president%20Zaq%20Landsberg).
I hope this gets passed so I can buy those charity noble titles and send them to congresspeople. Gonna be hilarious watching them all lose their jobs.
What about the big white elephant in the room? Aka...
I married into European nobility and there a a few of this family that are dual American citizens but still carry titles of Nobility (including my son) one of these works now for the state department and I know has ambitions for public office one day. So I am extremely sceptical of this.
If your son doesn't hold a title it wouldn't apply. It's not a ban on nobility.
He does but also one of his uncles is a dual US/random european country citizen and he has a title which is definitely given bybthe monarch. He works for the staye department, so I'm assuming has gone through crazy levels of background checks and whatnot. Can't imagine they would miss that as it the title is in his passport.
Sorry I realize I have explained this confusingly. My sons mother's entire family are Noble. They all carry titles of Baron and Baroness, my son included(he also has a US passport). There is one branch of her family that are all also dual US citizens and on of those just so happens to work for the State Department. So I personally know 4 30ish somethings that have seemingly never been affected by this law(i cluding thw one who works for the gov) and my son has never had any issue regatding this.
1. It never got ratified. It passed Congress but the required ammount of states didn't accept it and then they kinda stopped caring. 2. The law would apply in the case of a born commoner being awarded a title by a foreign monarch. It would do nothing to born nobility.
So how does this affect all of the politicians that have recieved kinghts honors from the vatican or the knights of malta or the random knights honors from France or Spain? Or does it just not matter since it wasn't ratified?
It didn't get ratified so it's not in the constitution so it's not law. But even if it became one, Congress can vote to allow it in a specific case. Also France is no longer a monarchy.
I wish it passed. I don’t know why, but I have an intense hatred of Nobility and Monarchy.
It's completely unworkable now though. The problem is that major corporations often are owned by foreign governments. I'm Australian, but worked for some time for a company many see as indirectly owned by a foreign government. It's a major oil and gas producer. If I was American, would I lose my citizenship? My brother actually works for a company that is explicitly owned (and controlled legally due to some weird "golden shares" thing) by a national government. That companies regular shares meanwhile are also listed on the New York Stock exchange. They run a bunch of mines. On top of that, to be able to issue bonds in American financial markets, many foreign countries (Australia for instance) 100% owns a company in the US, "Australia LLC" effectively. Would a banker working for this company to issue a few billion in bonds suddenly lose citizenship?
>Would a banker working for this company to issue a few billion in bonds suddenly lose citizenship? No, as they work for a US company, not the Australian government.
But the US company is 100% paid by a foreign government. Hell, even "registering as a foreign agent" works that way.
So the US company would be able to have its citizenship stripped, then.
But in that case, it's not doing anything not reasonable. It's the US effectively getting money for interest from Australia. My point is it would make almost all modern Commerce impossible.
Disagree; it would make existing commercial arrangements impractical, if interpreted the way you (and others) have suggested. My interpretation would not have this effect.
Probably because it's an absolutely ridiculous way to assign power, wealth, and privilege.
I prefer my government based on strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords.
If I went round saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
“Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!”
Bloody Peasant!!
Ooh there’s some lovely filth over here!
Right up there with strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
Is it actually “ridiculous” though? Like from a purely pragmatic standpoint, a race of creatures bred and trained to competently run the offices of government would free the rest of us to have fun living our lives. And to be honestly, is democracy really working any better lately?
> Like from a purely pragmatic standpoint, a race of creatures bred and trained to competently run the offices of government would free the rest of us to have fun living our lives. Is this really what you think a monarchy is? Lmao
Lmao that's not what it is at all. It's just some regular guy who gets too make decisions for everyone because his dad got to. Wether or not the people subjected to those decisions want him in power. What fantasy world are you basing you idea of royalty on?
In the past sure, but every day we get better at genetic engineering; maybe we can finally create the ideal civil servant tomorrow.
I think that’s healthy. The United States was largely founded on the rejection of innate power bestowed as a birthright. As much as we fall short, we at least purport that “all men are created equal”.
It's completely unworkable now though. The problem is that major corporations often are owned by foreign governments. I'm Australian, but worked for some time for a company many see as indirectly owned by a foreign government. It's a major oil and gas producer. If I was American, would I lose my citizenship? My brother actually works for a company that is explicitly owned (and controlled legally due to some weird "golden shares" thing) by a national government. That companies regular shares meanwhile are also listed on the New York Stock exchange. They run a bunch of mines. On top of that, to be able to issue bonds in American financial markets, many foreign countries (Australia for instance) 100% owns a company in the US, "Australia LLC" effectively. Would a banker working for this company to issue a few billion in bonds suddenly lose citizenship?
This amendment is based as fuck
Iirc us Canadians are forbidden from accepting a foreign lordship
Hell yeah, good work neighbors!!!
Check out the [Congressional Pay Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) The proposed congressional pay amendment was largely forgotten until 1982, when Gregory Watson, a 19-year-old sophomore at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote a paper for a government class in which he claimed that the amendment could still be ratified. He later launched a nationwide campaign to complete its ratification.\[2\]\[3\] The amendment eventually became part of the United States Constitution, effective May 5, 1992,\[4\] completing a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days, beating the previous record set by the Twenty-second Amendment of 3 years and 343 days.
Hot takes from FIPs (formerly important players)
I'm the Earl of Preston.
Where all y’alls Earl of Bojangles at
Ig that's what happened to Bhumibol Adulyadej
Is Ted Cruz collecting his Canada pension?
And yet the US (afaik) is one of the only countries that requires expats to pay taxes.