Fact check: How would the US Constitution need to be amended to establish a monarchy?

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal that none of the sources directly address the specific constitutional amendment process required to establish a monarchy in the United States. Instead, the sources focus on contemporary concerns about presidential power and monarchical tendencies in current governance.

The sources consistently emphasize that the US Constitution was deliberately designed to reject monarchical models of government ^[1]. The Framers established a system of checks and balances specifically to prevent absolute power concentration ^[1]. However, several sources discuss how recent developments have moved the presidency closer to monarchical power:

• The Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity has been characterized as giving the President "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts" ^[2] and "the power of a king" ^[3]
• Legislative responses have emerged, including the proposed "No Kings Act" aimed at removing the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over presidential immunity appeals ^[4]
• Contemporary political developments show concerns about expanding presidential power and potential constitutional crises ^[5]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question assumes a theoretical constitutional amendment process, but the analyses reveal several critical missing contexts:

Constitutional Amendment Process: None of the sources explain that establishing a monarchy would require Article V amendment procedures - either a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress or a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Fundamental Constitutional Restructuring: The sources don't address that establishing a monarchy would require dismantling core constitutional principles including:

• The separation of powers doctrine ^[1]
• The system of checks and balances ^[1]
• Republican form of government guarantees

Alternative Governance Models: One source mentions Curtis Yarvin's proposal for a "monarch-like system" led by a CEO-type figure ^[6], representing an alternative viewpoint on concentrated executive power that some political theorists advocate.

Historical Precedent: The sources reference the 22nd Amendment establishing presidential term limits ^[7] as an example of how constitutional amendments have historically been used to constrain rather than expand executive power.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself is theoretically neutral as it asks "how" rather than advocating for monarchical establishment. However, the framing potentially overlooks several important considerations:

Practical Impossibility: The question treats constitutional monarchy establishment as a procedural matter, when the sources suggest it would represent a fundamental rejection of American democratic principles established since the founding ^[1].

Contemporary Relevance: The timing of this question coincides with significant concerns about presidential power expansion ^[5] and Supreme Court decisions that critics argue already create "monarchical" immunity ^{[3] [2]}. This context suggests the question may be more politically charged than it appears.

Definitional Ambiguity: The question doesn't specify what type of monarchy (constitutional, absolute, ceremonial), while the sources focus on concerns about absolute power concentration rather than ceremonial monarchical structures.

The analyses collectively suggest that while the question appears academically neutral, it emerges within a political context where legislative efforts like the "No Kings Act" are actively working to prevent monarchical power concentration ^[4], indicating this is a live political issue rather than purely theoretical constitutional law.