Constitutional Monarchy

[JudgeRightly]

You are definitely conflating morality and law in this response but let's leave that aside and think on this from a different angle...

I don't think so.

I agree that moral guilt and judicially established guilt are distinct. A man may be morally guilty before God before his guilt is proven in court. A court does not create guilt; it establishes guilt judicially for purposes of civil punishment.

But in a Christian civil order, law is not supposed to be morally neutral procedure. Civil law is supposed to reflect justice. Romans 13 says civil rulers are ministers of God, avengers to execute wrath upon the evildoer. Genesis 9:6 grounds civil punishment for murder in the fact that man is made in God’s image. Matthew 22 distinguishes Caesar’s authority from God’s authority, and Acts 5:29 gives the controlling hierarchy when the two conflict: we ought to obey God rather than men.

That does not mean we do not obey men at all. Romans 13 says we normally should. It means human authority is real, but subordinate, not independent. When human authority commands what God forbids, or forbids what God commands, God’s authority is higher.

So I am not conflating morality and law. I am denying that civil law can be separated from moral reality as though it is merely whatever an earthly court can enforce. A king may be beyond the jurisdiction of every domestic court, but he is not beyond the authority of the law itself. The law still stands above him as the fixed standard by which his act is defined, condemned, and ultimately judged.

But since you want to set that aside for the moment, I will too.

We've been debating the issue as though there are only two possibilities:

1. An absolutely immune king.
2. A superior authority that can remove the king at will.

"Is the authority above the king?" only has two possible answers.

"Yes." In which case the king is no longer the final earthly authority, and can be controlled. He rules only so long as that superior authority permits him to rule.

"No." In which case that authority cannot finally bind him, judge him, or remove him when he refuses to be restrained.

It's the law of excluded middle. There is no middle ground here.

That's what "final authority" means. Either the king is at the top of the nation’s earthly civil order, or he is not.

There is a lot of constitutional territory between those two positions.

What you are getting into here is proceduralism, and that's definitely not a good way to resolve this question. Procedures can regulate authority, but they do not erase it. If the process can remove the king, then the process has authority over the king. If it cannot, then it does not restrain him. Adding thresholds, ratification, supermajorities, and safeguards only changes how hard the mechanism is to use. It does not change what the mechanism is.

And if the last 250 years of American history have shown us anything, it's just how well those things work at preventing evil people from manipulating the government to their own gain.

For example, imagine a constitution that allows prosecution of a king only for:

• Murder (and perhaps other major crimes such as rape)
• Treason
• Attempted overthrow of the constitution

And that further requires some large majority, say two thirds, of sitting judges to agree to remove the king and perhaps even a ratification process whereby the population of the nation has to also agree that the king has committed an offense that justifies his removal.

This illustrates my point rather than avoiding it.

If the judges and the population can authorize the king’s prosecution and removal, then the king is not the final earthly civil authority. His continuance in office depends on a process controlled by others.

All it would take is to convince enough people that the king is evil. Present false evidence. Produce false witnesses. Pressure, flatter, threaten, or corrupt enough judges. Control the flow of information. Shape public perception. Then the mechanism created to remove only a wicked king can be used to remove any king at all, especially a righteous one.

Yes, I'm simplifying a bit, but it doesn't change the nature of the danger. The more procedural machinery you create over the king, the more machinery wicked men can capture and use.

Limiting the process to severe crimes, requiring two thirds of the judges, or adding popular ratification may make the mechanism harder to use, but it does not change what the mechanism is or does.

If it can be used to prosecute and remove the king, then it exists above the throne.

At that point, no single institution possesses authority over the throne. Rather, the constitution itself creates an extraordinarily difficult process for dealing with the most extreme abuses.

But “the Constitution itself” does not act by itself. Men act under it.

If judges must initiate the process, then judges possess part of that authority. If the population must ratify it, then the population possesses part of that authority. If both are required, then the authority is distributed, but it is still authority over the throne.

Distributed authority is still authority.

A process does not cease to be superior to the king merely because it is difficult, divided, or rarely used. If the king remains king only so long as that process permits him to remain king, then he is not the final earthly civil authority. The process is.

So yes, your proposal may avoid placing removal power in one simple office that can remove the king “at will.” But it still creates a superior earthly mechanism over the king. It just makes that mechanism complex, distributed, and harder to activate.

That may mitigate one danger, but it creates another: it gives ambitious or patient men a constitutional target to capture, influence, redefine, or weaponize.

That is still my objection.

This is me going back on my earlier desire to stay out of discussions about the details of how such a legal process would work but I see no alternative way of allowing our discussion to proceed beyond our current impasse.

If I may, I think this is where the impasse actually is.

We both agree that perspective is important when trying to explain or learn. Paradigms are hard to break out of. Earlier I asked you to take a step back and look at the big picture. Otherwise, this becomes rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. We can keep adjusting procedures, thresholds, and safeguards, but if the mechanism can remove the king, then final earthly authority has already been moved away from the throne.

That is why I do not think proceduralism gets us anywhere here. The more we focus on how the process would work, the more we risk missing what the process is. My objection is not mainly to the details of the procedure. My objection is to the authority the procedure necessarily creates.

You are focused on how to design a legal process that can remove an evil king without being abused. I understand why: you believe we need a way to remove a wicked king because God is not actively intervening in our governmental affairs the way He did with Israel. But I am focused on what that process becomes once it exists.

If it can remove the king, then it has authority over the king at the decisive point. If it cannot remove him, then it cannot restrain him when he refuses to be restrained. Adding thresholds, supermajorities, ratification, or other safeguards may make the mechanism harder to use, but it does not change what the mechanism is.

So yes, the little-picture question is, “How do we remove a wicked king?”

But the big-picture question is, “What authority have we created in order to remove him, and who will control that authority later?” Because eventually, someone WILL control it.

That is the concern I do not think your proposal answers.

 

[Idolater]

Only in the sense that he is a FAKE monarch. He is a complete and absolute phony... so any thing that you say after that is irrelevant.

I appreciate your concern. I really only have one simple question here and nobody is answering it. What happens if an absolute monarch decides he's had enough? What process or procedure commences?

I am supposing that the absolute monarch is allowed to quit, if he wants to. I would expect as much. "I just want to retire," he says. Are his subjects supposed to disobey him? I think clearly not.

So what happens? Maybe he has a son or a daughter, and so this heir is crowned ... by whom? Which party holds custody of the coronation process?

obv also, what if the absolute monarch dies in office? What then? And what party, again, holds custody of what happens after an absolute monarch has died in office? Someone has to authorize what commences upon the death of the absolute monarch, especially if there is no obv heir or successor—who?

 

[JudgeRightly]

what if the absolute monarch dies in office? What then? And what party, again, holds custody of what happens after an absolute monarch has died in office? Someone has to authorize what commences upon the death of the absolute monarch, especially if there is no obv heir or successor—who?

This is answered in the "Succession Process" section at https://kgov.com/constitution.

 

[Clete]

I don't think so.

I agree that moral guilt and judicially established guilt are distinct. A man may be morally guilty before God before his guilt is proven in court. A court does not create guilt; it establishes guilt judicially for purposes of civil punishment.

But in a Christian civil order, law is not supposed to be morally neutral procedure. Civil law is supposed to reflect justice. Romans 13 says civil rulers are ministers of God, avengers to execute wrath upon the evildoer. Genesis 9:6 grounds civil punishment for murder in the fact that man is made in God’s image. Matthew 22 distinguishes Caesar’s authority from God’s authority, and Acts 5:29 gives the controlling hierarchy when the two conflict: we ought to obey God rather than men.

That does not mean we do not obey men at all. Romans 13 says we normally should. It means human authority is real, but subordinate, not independent. When human authority commands what God forbids, or forbids what God commands, God’s authority is higher.

So I am not conflating morality and law. I am denying that civil law can be separated from moral reality as though it is merely whatever an earthly court can enforce. A king may be beyond the jurisdiction of every domestic court, but he is not beyond the authority of the law itself. The law still stands above him as the fixed standard by which his act is defined, condemned, and ultimately judged.

But since you want to set that aside for the moment, I will too.



"Is the authority above the king?" only has two possible answers.

"Yes." In which case the king is no longer the final earthly authority, and can be controlled. He rules only so long as that superior authority permits him to rule.

"No." In which case that authority cannot finally bind him, judge him, or remove him when he refuses to be restrained.

It's the law of excluded middle. There is no middle ground here.

That's what "final authority" means. Either the king is at the top of the nation’s earthly civil order, or he is not.



What you are getting into here is proceduralism, and that's definitely not a good way to resolve this question. Procedures can regulate authority, but they do not erase it. If the process can remove the king, then the process has authority over the king. If it cannot, then it does not restrain him. Adding thresholds, ratification, supermajorities, and safeguards only changes how hard the mechanism is to use. It does not change what the mechanism is.

And if the last 250 years of American history have shown us anything, it's just how well those things work at preventing evil people from manipulating the government to their own gain.



This illustrates my point rather than avoiding it.

If the judges and the population can authorize the king’s prosecution and removal, then the king is not the final earthly civil authority. His continuance in office depends on a process controlled by others.

All it would take is to convince enough people that the king is evil. Present false evidence. Produce false witnesses. Pressure, flatter, threaten, or corrupt enough judges. Control the flow of information. Shape public perception. Then the mechanism created to remove only a wicked king can be used to remove any king at all, especially a righteous one.

Yes, I'm simplifying a bit, but it doesn't change the nature of the danger. The more procedural machinery you create over the king, the more machinery wicked men can capture and use.

Limiting the process to severe crimes, requiring two thirds of the judges, or adding popular ratification may make the mechanism harder to use, but it does not change what the mechanism is or does.

If it can be used to prosecute and remove the king, then it exists above the throne.



But “the Constitution itself” does not act by itself. Men act under it.

If judges must initiate the process, then judges possess part of that authority. If the population must ratify it, then the population possesses part of that authority. If both are required, then the authority is distributed, but it is still authority over the throne.

Distributed authority is still authority.

A process does not cease to be superior to the king merely because it is difficult, divided, or rarely used. If the king remains king only so long as that process permits him to remain king, then he is not the final earthly civil authority. The process is.

So yes, your proposal may avoid placing removal power in one simple office that can remove the king “at will.” But it still creates a superior earthly mechanism over the king. It just makes that mechanism complex, distributed, and harder to activate.

That may mitigate one danger, but it creates another: it gives ambitious or patient men a constitutional target to capture, influence, redefine, or weaponize.

That is still my objection.



If I may, I think this is where the impasse actually is.

We both agree that perspective is important when trying to explain or learn. Paradigms are hard to break out of. Earlier I asked you to take a step back and look at the big picture. Otherwise, this becomes rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. We can keep adjusting procedures, thresholds, and safeguards, but if the mechanism can remove the king, then final earthly authority has already been moved away from the throne.

That is why I do not think proceduralism gets us anywhere here. The more we focus on how the process would work, the more we risk missing what the process is. My objection is not mainly to the details of the procedure. My objection is to the authority the procedure necessarily creates.

You are focused on how to design a legal process that can remove an evil king without being abused. I understand why: you believe we need a way to remove a wicked king because God is not actively intervening in our governmental affairs the way He did with Israel. But I am focused on what that process becomes once it exists.

If it can remove the king, then it has authority over the king at the decisive point. If it cannot remove him, then it cannot restrain him when he refuses to be restrained. Adding thresholds, supermajorities, ratification, or other safeguards may make the mechanism harder to use, but it does not change what the mechanism is.

So yes, the little-picture question is, “How do we remove a wicked king?”

But the big-picture question is, “What authority have we created in order to remove him, and who will control that authority later?” Because eventually, someone WILL control it.

That is the concern I do not think your proposal answers.

So be it. The king is not the final authority.

That is, when he has chosen egregiously violate the law that placed him in his place of authority in the first place, then the law has provision to remove him from that place of authority.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So be it. The king is not the final authority.

Thus you have conceded the central point of the discussion. We are no longer talking about a true constitutional monarchy as Bob derived it from Biblical principles, with the king as final earthly civil authority, but about another form of government that has a king in it, akin to the current British arrangement, where the crown remains but final political authority has moved elsewhere.

That's been my point all along.

If the king can be removed by another earthly mechanism, then final earthly authority does not rest in the king. It rests in the mechanism that can remove him, and in the men who administer that mechanism.

A king who remains king only so long as another earthly authority permits him to remain king is not the final earthly civil authority. He holds the throne at sufferance.

That is already a step away from monarchy and into the next stage of the cycle.

That is, when he has chosen egregiously violate the law that placed him in his place of authority in the first place, then the law has provision to remove him from that place of authority.

But this still does not answer the problem as described. It only relocates it.

“The law” does not remove him by itself. Men do.

So the question remains: which men? Judges? The people? Some combination of both?

Whoever they are, if they have authority to remove the king, then they possess final earthly authority at the decisive point.

And that changes the king’s practical role. If the king knows that some mechanism can remove him, and if he values keeping the throne, then he has every incentive to govern only within the boundaries tolerated by those who control that mechanism. They do not even have to actively command him in every case. The threat is built into the structure.

At that point, the king may still wear the crown, but he rules under supervision. He becomes, at least in practice, a figurehead whenever the men who control the removal process are strong enough, organized enough, or influential enough to make their will known.

Britain is a useful example here. The crown still exists, but final earthly authority has moved elsewhere. The monarch remains as a symbol, while the real governing power operates through other institutions. And those institutions are now carrying the nation further along the political cycle.

That is why this is not merely a safeguard against wicked kings. It is a standing authority over the throne.

And that is also why I say this accelerates anacyclosis. Instead of enduring one visible, mortal tyrant, the nation creates the next ruling power over the throne. That power can later remove, threaten, or control kings in the name of removing wicked rulers.

So the problem has not been solved. It has only been relocated.

If you answer nothing else, please answer this: what do you understand anacyclosis to be, and why do you think I keep bringing it up in this discussion?

 

[Clete]

Thus you have conceded the central point of the discussion. We are no longer talking about a true constitutional monarchy as Bob derived it from Biblical principles, with the king as final earthly civil authority, but about another form of government that has a king in it, akin to the current British arrangement, where the crown remains but final political authority has moved elsewhere.

That's been my point all along.

If the king can be removed by another earthly mechanism, then final earthly authority does not rest in the king. It rests in the mechanism that can remove him, and in the men who administer that mechanism.

A king who remains king only so long as another earthly authority permits him to remain king is not the final earthly civil authority. He holds the throne at sufferance.

That is already a step away from monarchy and into the next stage of the cycle.

No, you don't get to take home the whole basket because I decided to stop arguing over your use of terminology.

Even with my modification, it is still a constitutional monarchy, who's king is the sovereign of the nation so long as he doesn't abdicate that authority by ignoring the law that gives him that authority in the first place - your fear of grand conspiracies against the king not withstanding.

But this still does not answer the problem as described. It only relocates it.

No, it does answer it. You just don't want to see it.

“The law” does not remove him by itself. Men do.

Semantics.

It was men who installed him on the throne in keeping with the law to begin with. The same men can remove him by the same law they used to install him.

So the question remains: which men? Judges? The people? Some combination of both?

Whoever they are, if they have authority to remove the king, then they possess final earthly authority at the decisive point.

You speak of it as if the law was giving judges the authority to remove the king by fiat, which of course would be a recipe for the sort of conspiracies you're afraid of, but that isn't what I'm proposing.

If the installation of a king according to the law is not outside the purview of a nation's people, then neither is removing him in accordance with the same law that was used to install him.

And that changes the king’s practical role. If the king knows that some mechanism can remove him, and if he values keeping the throne, then he has every incentive to govern only within the boundaries tolerated by those who control that mechanism. They do not even have to actively command him in every case. The threat is built into the structure.

If that mechanism can only be enforced as a result of the king violating the law in some egregious manner then that is precisely the effect it should have! The fear of the law should exist within the mind of the king as much as it exists for his subjects.

At that point, the king may still wear the crown, but he rules under supervision.

Supervision of the law! That's the whole point!

He becomes, at least in practice, a figurehead whenever the men who control the removal process are strong enough, organized enough, or influential enough to make their will known.

Again this statement is presupposing seditious behavior which could occur whether my suggested modification existed or not and for which the law already has provisions in place to deal with.

Britain is a useful example here. The crown still exists, but final earthly authority has moved elsewhere. The monarch remains as a symbol, while the real governing power operates through other institutions. And those institutions are now carrying the nation further along the political cycle.

It's an entirely irrelevant example because the legislature in Britain can enact new law and all sorts of other things that no party in the proposed system has any means of accomplishing. As I've said repeatedly, the judiciary in the proposed system are not grouped together in any sort of unified political body of judges that meets regularly and takes votes on various things that effect the policy of the nation. They are individual judges with very clearly defined jurisdictions.

That is why this is not merely a safeguard against wicked kings. It is a standing authority over the throne.

I've explained repeatedly how this is simply not the case. In short, it is an overreaction to what seems to me to be a very common sense provision designed to help (not guarantee) prevent the existence of a king that ignores the law.

And that is also why I say this accelerates anacyclosis. Instead of enduring one visible, mortal tyrant, the nation creates the next ruling power over the throne. That power can later remove, threaten, or control kings in the name of removing wicked rulers.

Once again, this fear would only be justified if there was a judge or set of judges that could remove the king simply because they desired to do so, which very clearly would not be the case.

So the problem has not been solved. It has only been relocated.

If you answer nothing else, please answer this: what do you understand anacyclosis to be, and why do you think I keep bringing it up in this discussion?

I think that the theory is based, first and foremost, in the notion that "monarchy" means the rule of a king who has carte blanche to enact any law he sees fit to enact by fiat command and by divine right.

As such, it seems not to apply to the proposed system, at least not directly, because the proposed system very explicitly denies the king the power of enact new law by fiat command. In other words, the proposed system is very much predicated on the idea of the rule of law, not the rule of a monarch. The monarch is there to facilitate, oversee and manage the affairs of state including the enforcement of the law, not to be any sort of tyrant. Indeed, it would require the king (and likely several others in government positions) to violate the law in order to even start down the anacyclosis road of becoming a tyrant and/or breaking the government down into some form of government other than the constitutional monarchy we are discussing.


I have a question for you...

Assume my proposed mechanism works exactly as intended. Assume for the moment that it only removes kings who have clearly violated the constitution in an objective and demonstrable way. Would such a mechanism reduce the likelihood of a rogue king successfully ruling the nation?

 

[Clete]

@JudgeRightly,

If you have it, could you post the full text of the proposed constitution, the criminal code and the code of use and whatever other original documents you've got that are relevant to this discussion?

 

[JudgeRightly]

@JudgeRightly,

If you have it, could you post the full text of the proposed constitution,

The Proposed Constitution of America | KGOV.com

kgov.com

As far as I'm aware, there weren't any changes from what I have.

criminal code

America’s Criminal Code | KGOV.com

kgov.com

Same. Pretty sure no changes.

and the code of use

As far as I'm aware Bob never got around to creating a full Code of Use. The only docs I have from Bob with regards to the Code of Use are some of Colorado's laws, a couple of emails, and what I presume was the start of his Code of Use draft, and backups of all of them.

and whatever other original documents you've got that are relevant to this discussion?

I'll send you a link to my folder of all the things I have for principles of government that are from Bob's teachings. It contains all the documents I've gotten from Bob over the years including the original Constitution and Criminal Code PDFs, the few Code of Use docs, and a few of the government seminars that he did.

The three primary docs groups are things he sent me directly when I asked him for materials on his proposed Constitution (way back in 2015!). Iirc, I wasn't even aware it was a monarchy until I asked him for them, or if I was, it was why I asked!

Much of the supporting document "Biblical Apologetic" in my possession is unfinished.

The Biblical Apologetic that can be found on kgov.com is in a much more complete state.

But the Political Apologetic I have is nearly if not 100% complete, whereas last I checked, it doesnt exist at all on kgov.com.

But yeah, I'll DM you a link to the folder.