If that’s your take away you have missed the point of why a constitutional monarch with no power is useful.

It’s an impotent and archaic encrustation that should be got rid of, no doubt about that. But to claim NZ is not a coherent democracy is absurd even by your well-known low standards.

The article you cite does not address my point about civilian control of a state’s military power, nor do I see what factual error I have made.

I did read that chap’s opinions the first time you cited them. He’s not very persuasive that monarchy is in any way compatible with democracy. (Either it is an impotent and archaic encrustation that should be got rid of, or it is a grave threat that should be got rid of.)

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/TtJdlm-jq6mhzCCbMWGmt-ydzVo=/512×512/cdn.vox-cdn.com/author_profile_images/9532/profileshot2.jpg

Incorrect. I’ve put up this link (and others) multiple times in response to you regarding your warped idea of democracy in New Zealand. How about reading it instead of continuing with your ignorance: https://www.vox.com/2014/9/23/6831777/new-zealand-electoral-system-constitution-mixed-member-unicameral

Sorry, but if a country’s commander in chief is a viceroy appointed by a pseudo-imperial monarch appointed by God (whose pseudo-imperial bum has graced the throne since before most people were born), that’s not a democracy in any remotely coherent sense of the word.

Government decree by tweet is sacrosanct of nothing. If he’s serious about changing policy, someone will hold his hand to get it done properly. If it’s just red meat for the base as I suspect it may be, then we’ll move on to the next disruption.

No actually. In my country, and most other democracies, it’s a principle of that democracy that the elected leader is NOT Commander-in-Chief. That’s a strength. And this wasn’t any well thought out plan. It was clearly a spur of the moment thing. A good leader discusses far-reaching policy decisions with those it effects. The Pentagon knew nothing about it and the White House still hasn’t issued any guidelines.

Exactly — but the sore loser in this case is Trump, who thought he could tweet an order at the armed forces rather than going through the established official channels. He tried it on, but they called his bluff.

Maybe he will eventually try to do it properly and reject those who are serving their country (or *your* country, I assume) on the basis of their gender. In that case, you can then gloat all you want about it.

It would take a Constitutional amendment to establish additional qualifications for the presidency. Congress has no power to do that.

Even sore losers should recognize that subordination of the armed forces to an elected commander in chief is a sacrosanct principle of democracy.