Recent content by JudgeRightly

I understand the angle, but abdication is not really the point under dispute. If the king voluntarily abdicates, explicitly or by some unmistakable public act, then the throne is vacant and the succession process begins. That is not especially controversial. But Clete’s proposal, as I...

Here's where we're at: Unanswered questions so far, including those raised by your proposed solution: What does “subject to law” mean? Does it mean bound by the law as a standard? Or does it mean under a superior domestic authority or court? Status: Still not sufficiently answered. The king...

Because you keep resetting the discussion without advancing your points in response to what I say. It is not as though I want my posts to be this long. They get long because I am trying to answer what you say, preserve the necessary distinctions, and prevent you from collapsing those...

Worth the watch: Full video:

Right. If the constitution itself explains where jurisdiction terminates, then that answers the jurisdiction question. And that is exactly why I keep pointing back to the actual structure of Enyart’s proposed Constitution. It does not merely say “the law is supreme” in the abstract. It creates...

With that all said, here's where we're at so far, Clete: What does “subject to law” mean: bound by law, or under a superior domestic authority? Partial answer: “same legal standard.” Sufficient? No. This answers “bound by law as a standard,” but not whether the king is under a superior...

You sure about that? Directly from the constitution page: The Judiciary [B P]: Judges serve by the will of the King to enforce America’s Constitution, Criminal Code [B P] and her Code of Use. The Monarch appoints up to ten men as judges, who each appoint up to ten men as judges beneath them...

No, Clete, I am not making the “kill all the lawyers” argument against law, judges, legal standards, or checks and balances. I am arguing against one specific kind of “check”: a domestic legal mechanism by which subordinate men may depose the highest earthly civil authority. You say the...

No one said it was. Then their choice could not be infallibly known by God beforehand as a settled fact before they made it. Again, no one said it is. Correct. Which means they could not have done otherwise. And if they could not have done otherwise, then their non-repentance was not a...

@Clete The points I'm making are not just me not seeing your position. They have been thought about for centuries, millennia even. This video by Christian Heiens is not necessarily on the topic of monarchy, but he makes several relevant points to this discussion. Also, this video by Nick...

That does not follow. By whatever standard you seem to be using, any time any judge, officer, soldier, or magistrate acts unlawfully, the entire system has “thrown the rule of law into the trash heap” as to him. If a judge twists the law, ignores evidence, takes a bribe, or issues an unlawful...

@Clete I will get to this later today. Please hold off on replying to my post #404 so I can catch up.

Granting the abdication example for the sake of the analogy, it still does not prove what you need it to prove. If the king publicly renounces the Constitution and abdicates, then the vacancy is created by the king’s own act. The judge, in your example, is not removing a sitting king. He is...

The Point You Still Haven’t Answered I repeat it because the point still has not been answered. You keep saying “the law” is over the king, and I agree with that as a standard: the king is bound by the law and cannot make evil lawful. But the issue is not whether the law is over the king as...

Just don't call me Shirley.