Monarch (Tyrant, Despot?) or President?

This is a special post written by The Riceman, a friend, colleague and fellow Patriot. I'm honored to post it here.

In Federalist #69, Hamilton compared the powers and limitations of the proposed U.S. Executive to the powers of the British Monarch. Here are a few excerpts (emphasis is mine):

1. The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. (Apparently, the Republicans are treating the Current Occupant as a Monarch, since they cannot even bring themselves to utter the "I-Word".)

2. The President is to have power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur. The king of Great Britain is the sole and absolute representative of the nation in all foreign transactions. He can of his own accord make treaties of peace, commerce, alliance, and of every other description. It has been insinuated, that his authority in this respect is not conclusive, and that his conventions with foreign powers are subject to the revision, and stand in need of the ratification, of Parliament. But I believe this doctrine was never heard of, until it was broached upon the present occasion. Every jurist of that kingdom, and every other man acquainted with its Constitution, knows, as an established fact, that the prerogative of making treaties exists in the crown in its utomst plentitude; and that the compacts entered into by the royal authority have the most complete legal validity and perfection, independent of any other sanction. (Witness the Current Occupant's recent Greenhouse Gas/Climate Change Agreement with China: He decreed it to be so--there's no talk of the Congress ratifying ANYTHING!)

3. The one can confer no privileges whatever; the other can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies. (Taking the second point first: didn't the Current Occupant actually select the new head of General Motors, after the government took controlling interest in that corporation, as well as Chrysler Corp.? Lastly, what of today's planned announcement of the Executive Order granting Amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants plus the millions more that will come due to both the porous border and chain immigration?)

So, do we still have a national executive, or has it degenerated in to a Hereditary/Monied Aristocracy Monarch (Bushes & Clintons)? 

President or Monarch/Tyrant/Despot??

Sources: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa69.htm

                http://constitution.org/c5/

Semper Fi and thank you Riceman!