# data[].attributes.headline
Evelyn Shen, Estrella Cuevas, Chayce Melton, Andrew Flores

# data[].attributes.subject
Evelyn Shen, Estrella Cuevas, Chayce Melton, Andrew Flores

# data[].attributes.body
Def: A system where every citizen gets to vote on every major law and decision.

Leaders: The people themselves hold power.

Pros: it's the fairest system, people are in control, prevents corruption

Cons: slow and inefficient, tyranny of the majority, requires informed citizens.

# data[].attributes.headline
Andrew Flores, Evelyn Shen, Estella Cuevas, Chayce Melton

# data[].attributes.subject
Andrew Flores, Evelyn Shen, Estella Cuevas, Chayce Melton

# data[].attributes.headline
Chayce Melton, Evelyn Shen, Estrella Cuevas, Andrew Flores

# data[].attributes.subject
Chayce Melton, Evelyn Shen, Estrella Cuevas, Andrew Flores

# data[].attributes.headline
Andrew Flores Chayce Melton Evelyn Shen estrella cuevas

# data[].attributes.subject
Andrew Flores Chayce Melton Evelyn Shen estrella cuevas

# data[].attributes.headline
Savannah Renteria Levi Rance 
Francisco Peralta

# data[].attributes.subject
Savannah Renteria Levi Rance 
Francisco Peralta

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Congratulations to Queen Elizabeth II, who today, September 9, 2015, became the longest-reigning British monarch in history, surpassing her great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria.

This milestone is as good a time as any to celebrate not just Elizabeth herself, but the system she represents. A small but vocal minority of Britons - about 17 percent as of 2013 - advocate abolishing the monarchy and adopting a republic. It's an understandable impulse. In the modern era, royal families can feel like anachronisms at best and colossal, offensive wastes of money at worst.

But the skeptics are wrong. Constitutional monarchy is the best system of government known to man, and it would be a terrible shame if Britain abandoned it.

Monarchies are more democratically legitimate

Generally speaking, in a parliamentary system, you need a head of state who is not the prime minister to serve as a disinterested arbiter when there are disputes about how to form a government - say, if the largest party should be allowed to form a minority government or if smaller parties should be allowed to form a coalition, to name a recent example from Canada. That head of state is usually a figurehead president elected by the parliament (Germany, Italy) or the people (Ireland, Finland), or a monarch. And monarchs are better.

Monarchs are more effective than presidents precisely because they lack any semblance of legitimacy. It would be offensive for Queen Elizabeth or her representatives in Canada, New Zealand, etc. to meddle in domestic politics. Indeed, when the governor general of Australia did so in 1975 it set off a constitutional crisis that made it clear such behavior would not be tolerated. As Margit Tavits at Washington University in St. Louis once told me, "Monarchs can truly be above politics. They usually have no party connections and have not been involved in daily politics before assuming the post of the head of state." But figurehead presidents have some degree of democratic legitimacy, and are typically former politicians. That enables a greater rate of shenanigans - like when Italian President Giorgio Napolitano schemed, successfully, to remove Silvio Berlusconi as prime minister due at least in part to German Chancellor Angela Merkel's entreaties to do so.

Napolitano is the rule, rather than the exception. Oxford political scientists Petra Schleiter and Edward Morgan-Jones have found that presidents, whether elected indirectly by parliament or directly by the people, are likelier to allow governments to change without new elections than monarchs are. In other words, they're likelier to change the government without any democratic input at all:

Worse, Tavits, in her book Presidents With Prime Ministers, finds that directly elected presidents make the public less politically engaged, depressing turnout in parliamentary elections by about 7 percent. Even indirect elections can be extremely polarizing, she finds, and tend to produce presidents who rule in ways that subtly benefit their parties.

If you're going to have a parliamentary system of government - and you should - a monarch is a much better way to go than a president.

The cost of monarchy is low

Opponents of the British royal family often point to its expense as a reason to abolish it. The anti-monarchy group Republic estimates that the royal family costs £299.4 million ($460 million) a year. By contrast, Germany's president only costs £26 million ($40 million) a year.

But by Republic's own admission, monarchies don't have to be that expensive. Spain's monarchy, according to Republic, costs only £8 million ($12.3 million) a year, considerably less than the presidents of Portugal, Finland, and Germany. In fact, the monarchies in Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, and Sweden all cost less than the German presidency as well. Monarchy can be done on the cheap.

That said, it's not clear if cheaper would be better in the UK context. Unlike, say, the Spanish monarchy, the UK monarchy has an exceptionally powerful, and profitable, brand. Some recent estimates put the annual value of the royal "brand" at about £1.9 billion ($2.9 billion). That easily outweighs the costs. Even more conservative estimates, like one putting the tourism value of the monarchy at £500 million ($768 million) a year, suggest the monarchy pays for itself.

That's a quite small economic boost, to be sure. But it puts a lie to price-based criticisms of the monarchy.

God bless the British monarchy, long may it reign

The British monarchy is not an anachronism. It is not a waste of money. It is a vital part of the United Kingdom that makes British democracy more responsive to the concerns of citizens at little or negative cost to British taxpayers.

Americans have an unfortunate tendency to get huffy about Britain's superior political system. We don't want our silly revolution to have been in vain, after all. But on this occasion, at least, let's put our grievances aside and celebrate Queen Elizabeth II for sustaining one of the world's more important democratic institutions for more than 63 remarkable years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Long live Queen Elizabeth: Why monarchies are better than republics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congratulations to Queen Elizabeth II, who today, September 9, 2015, became the longest-reigning British monarch in history, surpassing her great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria. This milestone is as good a time as any to celebrate not just Elizabeth herself, but the system she represents.

# data[].attributes.headline
Estrella Cuevas, Evelyn Shen, Chayce Melton, Andrew Flores, 

# data[].attributes.subject
Estrella Cuevas, Evelyn Shen, Chayce Melton, Andrew Flores, 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a monarch-typically a king or queen-acts as the head of state within the parameters of a written or unwritten constitution. In a constitutional monarchy, political power is shared between the monarch and a constitutionally organized government such as a parliament. Constitutional monarchies are the opposite of absolute monarchies, in which the monarch holds all power over the government and the people. Along with the United Kingdom, a few examples of modern constitutional monarchies include Canada, Sweden, and Japan.

Key Takeaways: Constitutional Monarchy

Power Distribution

Similar to the way in which the powers and duties of the president of the United States are described in the U.S. Constitution, the powers of the monarch, as the head of state, are enumerated in the constitution of a constitutional monarchy.

In most constitutional monarchies, the monarchs' political powers, if any, are very limited and their duties are mostly ceremonial. Instead, real governmental power is exercised by a parliament or similar legislative body overseen by a prime minister. While the monarch may be recognized as the "symbolic" head of state, and the government might technically function in the name of the queen or king, the prime minister actually governs the country. Indeed, it has been said that the monarch of a constitutional monarchy is, "A sovereign who reigns but does not rule."

As a compromise between placing blind trust in a lineage of kings and queens who have inherited their power and a belief in the political wisdom of the people being ruled, modern constitutional monarchies are usually a blend of monarchal rule and representative democracy.

Besides serving as a living symbol of national unity, pride and tradition, the constitutional monarch may-depending on the constitution-have the power to disband the current parliamentary government or to give royal consent to the actions of the parliament. Using England's constitution as an example, British political scientist Walter Bagehot listed the three main political rights available to a constitutional monarch: "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn."

Constitutional vs. Absolute Monarchy

Constitutional

A constitutional monarchy is a blended form of government in which a king or queen with limited political power rules in combination with a legislative governing body such as a parliament representing the desires and opinions of the people.

An absolute monarchy is a form of government in which a king or queen rules with total unchallenged and unchecked political and legislative power. Based on the ancient concept of the "Divine Right of Kings" suggesting that kings derived their authority from God, absolute monarchies operate under the political theory of absolutism. Today the only remaining pure absolute monarchies are Vatican City, Brunei, Swaziland, Saudi Arabia, Eswatini, and Oman.

After the signing of the Magna Carta in 1512, constitutional monarchies began to supplant absolute monarchies for a combination of similar reasons, including their often weak or tyrannical kings and queens, failure to provide funds for pressing public needs, and refusal to address valid grievances of the people.

Current Constitutional Monarchies

Today, the world's 43 constitutional monarchies are members of the Commonwealth of Nations, a 53-nation intergovernmental support organization headed by the sitting monarch of the United Kingdom. Some of the best-recognized examples of these modern constitutional monarchies include the governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Sweden, and Japan.

The United Kingdom

Made up of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy in which the queen or king is the head of state, while an appointed prime minister leads the government in the form of the British Parliament. Bestowed with all lawmaking powers, the Parliament is composed of the House of Commons, the members of which are elected by the people, and the House of Lords, comprised of members who have either been appointed or have inherited their seats.

While the monarch of the United Kingdom also serves as Canada's head of state, the Canadian people are governed by an elected prime minister and a legislative parliament. In the Canadian Parliament, all laws are proposed by a popularly elected House of Commons and must be approved by the royally appointed Senate.

The King of Sweden, while the head of state, lacks any defined political power and serves a largely ceremonial role. All lawmaking power is vested in the Riksdag, a single-chambered legislative body composed of democratically elected representatives.

In the world's most populous constitutional monarchy, the Emperor of Japan has no constitutional role in the government and is relegated to ceremonial duties. Created in 1947 during the country's post-World War II U.S. occupation, Japan's constitution provides for a government structure similar to that of the United States.

The executive branch is overseen by a royally appointed prime minister who controls the government. The legislative branch, called the National Diet, is a popularly elected, bicameral body composed of a House of Councillors and a House of Representatives. The Japanese Supreme Court and several lower courts make up a judicial branch, which functions independently of the executive and legislative branches.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is a Constitutional Monarchy? Definition and Examples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a monarch-typically a king or queen-acts as the head of state within the parameters of a written or unwritten constitution. In a constitutional monarchy, political power is shared between the monarch and a constitutionally organized government such as a parliament.

# data[].attributes.headline
Savannah Renteria, Levi Rance, Francisco Peralta

# data[].attributes.subject
Savannah Renteria, Levi Rance, Francisco Peralta

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: One person (king/queen) who holds power in one area.

Ways to get power: By inheriting the power based on their bloodline.

Pros: People will know who will be next in line for power, make a quick decision, and show a powerful symbol of unity.

Cons: You might get stuck with a ruler who does not care and is rude, and leaders who were born into their bloodline and not by their skill, and the average person has no say in how the country is run.

# data[].attributes.body
a republican form of government is often considered beneficial because it features a head of state who is not a monarch, a constitution that limits government power, and in many cases, mechanisms for citizen participation through elections and the protection of civic rights. Key advantages include preventing hereditary rule and empowering competent citizens, while potential drawbacks involve the risks of elite detachment or political infighting. The effectiveness of a republic, particularly a constitutional republic

# data[].attributes.headline
Brianna Melchor, Kassidy Lara, David mancha

# data[].attributes.subject
Brianna Melchor, Kassidy Lara, David mancha

# data[].attributes.body
Def: A monarchy is a form of government where a single person, a monarch (like a king or queen), is the head of state.

Leaders: Leaders are not chosen by the people. They inherit their power based on their bloodline and family history.

Pros: the decisions would be quick and simple. Another pro: A clear line of succession. Cons: Could've had a bad ruler due to little choices. Another con: No citizen participation.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: One single leader or a very small group.

How do leaders get power? A leader often takes power by force or is chosen.

Selling points: Extremely Efficient, creates a stable and strong decisive action.

Potential Problems: No individual freedom, leaders could be brutal, and no Peaceful transfer of power.

# data[].attributes.headline
Richard Orona, Samuel Manzo, Felipe Vaipulu, Noah Ibarra 

# data[].attributes.subject
Richard Orona, Samuel Manzo, Felipe Vaipulu, Noah Ibarra 

# data[].attributes.body
Def: Authoritarian Government is a system where one single leader or a very small group holds all the power .

Leaders: A leader often takes power by force.

Pros: With one person making all the decisions things get done quicker. The Government can lead to very low crime rates. An Authoritarian leader can act immediately without needing to consult anyone.

Cons: Citizens have no freedom of speech.

The leader might use violence to keep everyone under control.

The only way to change the leader is often though a violent civil war.

# data[].attributes.body
def: theocracy is a system where the country is ruled by religious leaders. all laws are based on the group's religious and moral beliefs.

how leaders get there power: leaders get their power from being high ranking religious figures chosen by other religious figures.

pros: government encourages in good behavior, has a unified community, and everyone feels safe near their leaders.

cons: people who don't follow the religious rules are treated differently, can not believe in different laws, and very resident to scientific ideas

# data[].attributes.body
The definition: A republic is a form of government in which the people hold power, instead of just one person.

Leaders: The people hold power in this government and are elected via a general vote.

Pros: Individual rights are protected, (as everybody is allowed to hold power) minority rights are protected, among many other rights.

Cons; corruption is possible, leaders might stop listening and oculd start making descions you dont like.

# data[].attributes.headline
Emma Melendrez, Bella Moreno, Denise peralta

# data[].attributes.subject
Emma Melendrez, Bella Moreno, Denise peralta

# data[].attributes.body
Def: A republic is a system where citizens vote to elect representatives to make laws and run the government for them.

Leaders (like presidents, senators, or council members.

Pros:

Representatives can be experts: People can elect knowledgeable leaders about complex topics like the economy or healthcare.

Cons:

Leaders might stop listening: Once elected, representatives could start making decisions you disagree with or that only benefit themselves.