That "psycho executive"—George III—reigned during the period of the American War of Independence, which, if you recall, he lost, so it seems both nations managed to restrain his power.
The UK's mechanisms for restraining Naughty Monarchs, back when it was relevant, were largely unwritten but pretty extensive; 150 years previously, Charles I had, ah, lost his head about it. The US's mechanisms are limited, written, and, as it turns out, don't work.
It's probably best to keep in mind, though, that George III had a lot less power than the US president; the monarch had basically lost the royal assent (veto) by then, for practical purposes. I'm reasonably sure that by that point the monarch had nothing similar to an executive order, either.
Ephron's genius, as with Austen's, was not simply the fact that she seemed to have come up with a winning formula, there was also an enormous amount of craft, wit, originality and compassion involved.
To be clear, this is a partisan political opinion that borders on authoritarianism. You may not like Trump, but he was democratically elected. So prey tell, what would "restraining" a democratically elected 'executive' look like? Remember, any rule you define has to be measured against past presidents and apply to future presidents.
If Trump had been intubated with Covid or suffered a stroke, then the 25th amendment would have been an appropriate choice. Otherwise the proper avenue to remove a misbehaving president is impeachment.
Well, we sure had a bunch of "constitutional scholars" saying that the 25th should be invoked for exactly that. If you want to claim that those people were random people pushing their viewpoint rather than actual scholars, I could accept that. But if you're saying there's a general consensus among the experts, I wouldn't mind seeing a credible source to that effect.
Why not? Sounds like it's roughly tantamount to giving the cabinet the power to impeach the President. Given the natural restraint on that power in that the cabinet is appointed by the President, I'm not sure I see any problem there.
What’s bad is having a very much awake and ambulatory Trump arguing in front of the Senate that he should be back in power. That’s a political nightmare, and far worse than Congress using its powers to expel the president on their own initiative. It’s much better for our body politic for Congress to impeach and save the 25th amendment for less politically ambiguous situations.
Congress also the ability to impeach the President. Congress couldn't get the votes to do remove the President from office ... so your partisan solution is for the cabinet to find a reason to remove the President? Why? Because you don't like how your fellow citizens voted?
How about this: Vote him out in the next election? Oh that actually happened! And Democracy survived!
For all the talk about Trump, the opposition is perfectly willing to destroy every single norm and democratic institution just to get him.
Insanity.
I actually found the article wanting. I could not turn to a colleague after reading it and explain why this period was an ideal setting for romances. I learned who some of sources of romance in this period are. I learned that perhaps modern romances set in the period aren't true to the original form. And I got a glimpse at some of the attributes of said era (fictional or not so). But I did not see much that told me why this was an appealing backdrop for romance novels. What about this era makes it ideal for romance vs other eras?