Constitutional Monarchy

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I do not think

There you go with your opinion again, and once again, that's all it is, and nothing more.

any human government can survive as it moves away from God.

Duh, Marke. DUH!

You're once again COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT!

The point is not WHETHER a government will move away from God, but rather HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE BEFORE IT MOVES AWAY!

The republic of America has lasted for 250 years, and is already well into its collapse.

England, a constitutional monarchy, though I suppose within the last few centuries or so they've been slowly doing away with having the monarch rule and now mostly just have a parliament ruling, with the monarch being a mostly ceremonial position, so I guess we'll see how much longer she lasts, has lasted for just under 1100 YEARS, and despite them being farther leftist than America, I don't see England collapsing anytime soon!

The goal is STABILITY, marke!

A constitutional monarchy FAR outclasses ANY republic!

Kingdoms have risen and fallen as corruption has taken them over.

So far, England has not fallen, despite being one of the most corrupt nations on earth.

There is no monarchy on earth that is showing itself to be superior to the American Constitutional government,

Superior how?

Because America isn't that high of a bar, and you would be deluding yourself if you think it is.

including or excluding flaws.

ALL governments have flaws, marke, but how fast they decay depends on WHAT the flaws are and how they are addressed. The goal of the proposed Constitutional Monarchy is to REDUCE the number of flaws, and minimize, as much as is possible, the rate of decay of the government, so that the people who live under it do not suffer.

The current form of government has too many flaws, and at this point, there is nothing left to do but wait for it to fail as a whole, because there is NO RECOVERY for a republic, as @Yorzhik said.

A constitutional monarchy, as he also said, has the chance to recover, within one's lifetime, if not a shorter period of time!
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
There you go with your opinion again, and once again, that's all it is, and nothing more.



Duh, Marke. DUH!

You're once again COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT!

The point is not WHETHER a government will move away from God, but rather HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE BEFORE IT MOVES AWAY!

The republic of America has lasted for 250 years, and is already well into its collapse.

England, a constitutional monarchy, though I suppose within the last few centuries or so they've been slowly doing away with having the monarch rule and now mostly just have a parliament ruling, with the monarch being a mostly ceremonial position, so I guess we'll see how much longer she lasts, has lasted for just under 1100 YEARS, and despite them being farther leftist than America, I don't see England collapsing anytime soon!

The goal is STABILITY, marke!

A constitutional monarchy FAR outclasses ANY republic!



So far, England has not fallen, despite being one of the most corrupt nations on earth.



Superior how?

Because America isn't that high of a bar, and you would be deluding yourself if you think it is.



ALL governments have flaws, marke, but how fast they decay depends on WHAT the flaws are and how they are addressed. The goal of the proposed Constitutional Monarchy is to REDUCE the number of flaws, and minimize, as much as is possible, the rate of decay of the government, so that the people who live under it do not suffer.

The current form of government has too many flaws, and at this point, there is nothing left to do but wait for it to fail as a whole, because there is NO RECOVERY for a republic, as @Yorzhik said.

A constitutional monarchy, as he also said, has the chance to recover, within one's lifetime, if not a shorter period of time!
The Roman Empire began as a constitutional monarchy also. That didn't last all that long, 200 to 300 years, before it started morphing into other forms of government. It ended up as one of the cruelest and most tyrannical of all nations in the history of the earth.

Monarchies are nothing more than centralized government which means the very few control the many. That's the issue we face in this nation today. It is the basic premise of communism that government owns and controls everything. Monarchies are no different in principle,
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The Roman Empire began as a constitutional monarchy also. That didn't last all that long, 200 to 300 years, before it started morphing into other forms of government. It ended up as one of the cruelest and most tyrannical of all nations in the history of the earth.

The Roman Empire also lasted over 1000 years, and was, despite its wickedness, one of the most stable empires to exist.

As was said before, ffreeloader, an evil king is just one person who needs to be convinced in order to repent and turn the nation around.

You will NEVER convince millions to repent.

Monarchies are nothing more than centralized government which means the very few control the many.

Mono means one...

Which means one person controls the nation, not a few.

And as said before: a SINGLE point of accountability often rightly motivates, because even an evil king knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s actions.

That's the issue we face in this nation today.

As of 2020, there were 2.9 million federal employees in the US government, and 19.8 million state and local government employees.

There are a total of 545 people in the positions of president, supreme court justices, and congress members combined.

VS

1 king
10 judges serving under him
And any people he might appoint to leadership roles as heads of certain departments of the government, excluding positions over certain things that are prohibited by the proposed constitution, such as welfare programs and public education.

So what's the "issue that we face today" that applies to both systems, ffree?

It is the basic premise of communism that government owns and controls everything.

Where has that "premise" ever been stated or even implied in either this or the original thread, or even in the kgov.com/constitution link?

Because quite the opposite is stated:


Each person, including visiting foreigners, has God-given rights that this Government exists to protect, the right . . . to Purchase and Use Property;


Proposed Constitution page


Buying and Selling: Biblical Defense
The government will need to purchase land, buildings, equipment, supplies, and sell excess inventories.

Forced Sales: Biblical Defense
No rules are provided for getting a fair appraised value because any leader will either be fair or not.

. . .

Against Communism: Biblical Apologetic

· Communist countries endorse evolution and oppose theism to rationalize their criminal behavior. [C P]

Against Public Education: Biblical Apologetic

· The government does not have the right to force someone to pay for another man’s education. [C P]

National Debt: Biblical Apologetic

· A debtor nation is more at risk being less able to defend its sovereignty than a creditor nation. [C P]

King’s Compensation: Biblical Apologetic

· The King’s compensation should increase as the income of his subjects increases, and viceversa. [C P]

Carved in Stone: Biblical Apologetic [Constitution Political]

· The arguments for the Amendment Process also defend this provision. [C P]

· Joshua engraved the law on stone. [C P]

· By the Constitution, the fivepercent tax rate may occasionally drop to one percent.

· never increases above five percent. The government surplus, invested well, may produce enough

income, with the additional one percent tax revenues, to fund the government indefinitely. If so, find, the rate stays at one percent, effectively lowering the rate. Of course, many Monarchs will not have the best interest of the country, nor of the subjects, in mind. Theft...

· Government support of the redistribution of wealth is expressly forbidden. The government cannot

inspire or enforce any form of socialism, communism, or collectivism. Further, it cannot nationalize, take over or regulate any business, health care or service, including education. The government, at every level, is specifically forbidden to tax or spend money for the purpose of education.

· If someone is wrongly accused of tax evasion, his false accuser must pay restitution for the reasonable expenses incurred by the taxpayer in mounting his defense.

· FIX: Subjects may pay taxes weekly, monthly, quarterly or annually with no interest penalty assessed for annual payment.

· The King may specify the medium of exchange acceptable as tax payment.


Biblical Apologetic for the Constitution (Work in Progress) page

Monarchies are no different in principle,

The proposed constitution and government is the exact opposite of that. Had you read the materials, you would know that.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Let's be fair.

Yes, let's. How about we start with you responding to what has been said to you that you have yet to respond to.

How many kingdoms do you know of in human history that were superior to our Constitutional form of government,

Asked before: Superior how?

Be specific.

Otherwise, I'm just going to point to Israel's Constitutional Monarchy, which lasted for about 300 years for Israel, and about 430 years for Juda.

and how many lasted for a long time

There are several governments that lasted for well over a thousand years throughout history. Most of them were empires, with monarchs beneath the emperor.

as good monarchies

Define "good monarchy."

Also, keep in mind that the objective in this discussion is to find the most stable, most God-honoring form of government, because such are, by definition, the best governments.

blessed by God?

What is with this fascination you have that a government be "blessed by God"?

I've explained to you before what "blessed" means when it comes to nations.

A government will be blessed by God by honoring Him and by abiding by His principles. It's as simple as that.

Or what, do you think that a government has to receive God's blessing for it to be a valid government? In which case America's fails, because there was no direct blessing given by God at it's founding, and you cannot establish that there was.
 

marke

Well-known member
Yes, let's. How about we start with you responding to what has been said to you that you have yet to respond to.



Asked before: Superior how?

Be specific.

Otherwise, I'm just going to point to Israel's Constitutional Monarchy, which lasted for about 300 years for Israel, and about 430 years for Juda.



There are several governments that lasted for well over a thousand years throughout history. Most of them were empires, with monarchs beneath the emperor.



Define "good monarchy."

Also, keep in mind that the objective in this discussion is to find the most stable, most God-honoring form of government, because such are, by definition, the best governments.



What is with this fascination you have that a government be "blessed by God"?

I've explained to you before what "blessed" means when it comes to nations.

A government will be blessed by God by honoring Him and by abiding by His principles. It's as simple as that.

Or what, do you think that a government has to receive God's blessing for it to be a valid government? In which case America's fails, because there was no direct blessing given by God at it's founding, and you cannot establish that there was.
We are living in the ends times and are told in the Bible that most governments on earth will be subjected to a supreme ruler of the devil. I do not look for any earthly king to rule over a kingdom not subject to the devil, and I do not want to be ruled over by a king who is of the devil.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
We are living in the ends times

How is that at all relevant to the discussion?

and are told in the Bible that most governments on earth will be subjected to a supreme ruler of the devil.

Again, relevance?

I do not look for any earthly king to rule over a kingdom not subject to the devil,

Double negative.

and I do not want to be ruled over by a king who is of the devil.

If you're a member of the body of Christ, you have nothing to worry about, since we'll be up in heaven by that point.

So again, how is ANY of this relevant to the thread?

Was what I said not clear enough?
 

marke

Well-known member
How is that at all relevant to the discussion?



Again, relevance?



Double negative.



If you're a member of the body of Christ, you have nothing to worry about, since we'll be up in heaven by that point.

So again, how is ANY of this relevant to the thread?

Was what I said not clear enough?
I'm sorry to have to admit this but I also don't really see the relevance in continuing to discuss this.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Continuing the discussion here from another thread:

One person making a decision with no immediate safeguards will speed up decisions. That's true.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

A government that can respond quickly can handle situations requiring immediate answers far more quickly than one with a bureaucracy.

But, any benefit that it affords is outweighed by the increased risk of oppression and harm.

As opposed to the guaranteed oppression and harm done by democracies and republics? I'll take the chance of a good king over a guarantee of an oppressive majority.

Government should protect minorities from the majority. Thus government should protect minorities from majority rule, not impose it upon them. More likely the majority will exploit a minority, than a minority misuse the majority. Democracy empowers the majority to abuse any minority: the rich, white males, Christians, etc.

And, the corrective measure is harsh.

There are far more harsh things than civil disobedience.

The only way to stop a wayward autocrat is violent upheaval.

Civil disobedience is not "violent upheaval."

Give that much power to one person increases hubris, egotism, and bloodlust

As opposed to the same amount of power being given to hundreds or even millions of people?

Tell me how that wouldn't increase their hubris, egotism, and bloodlust.

Better living under one tyrant three thousand miles away, than under three thousand tyrants one mile away, though counting yourself among them.

I find it fascinating that your are advocating this position while Putin is murdering civilians for no good reason.

I've been advocating this position since 2015.

And yes, Putin is wrong in doing such things for multiple reasons. But Zelenskyy isn't much better, by comparison.

Nice, instead of voting to express my concerns, I need to set myself on fire or get run over by a tank.
The things you would be protesting wouldn't be things you could vote on anyways, only the actions of the king in violation of the law he is under.

So, you think blind chance is the best way to select a leader? Seems like a recipe for disaster.

Casting lots causes contentions to cease, And keeps the mighty apart. - Proverbs 18:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs18:18&version=NKJV

Compare that to democracy and republics:

The detestable desire to lord it over one’s neighbor incites the worst of men to campaign for office. Democracy, a leftwing idea loved by modern liberals, appeals to those obsessed with control. Democracy, the most divisive form of government, sets neighbor against neighbor. Via democracy, the morality of the Average Man pulls government downward.

Again: One bet against the gaming house might win; likewise, one leader may be benevolent, but not millions. As wagers multiply, the chance of loss increases; so do many voters increase the likelihood for evil.

In BOTH republics and democracies, "politics" and "politicians" are used as perjoratives.

Democracy enables a few to manipulate the many, and easily conceals the true rulers. Republics obscure accountability more so than democracies. We blame officials who blame us.

You will get someone with low IQ

Why do you assume that a higher IQ necessarily makes someone better qualified to lead than a lower IQ?

And couldn't the person, upon becoming king, learn how to rule through gaining of experience?

I don't know what the IQ of King Josiah was when he became king at 8 years old, and he was arguably the best king Israel had, other than David, and he ruled for 31 years.

David was just a shepard when he was chosen to be the next king after Saul.


I presume you meant "or" here...

severe personality disorder and the whole society will suffer for it.

Disorders such as?

Equally, rather, even more likely that we get someone who can lead a nation competently enough that the status quo is, at the very least, maintained.

As opposed to democracies and republics: The larger the committee the more unreliable its performance, thus democracy leads poorly. Even more so for republics.

Would you let your precinct decide your medical treatment? Then should they decide the nation’s
future?

Morally, the majority sinks to the level permitted by government. If the majority is the government, nothing can stop a nation’s decline.

All flawed individuals checked by the other branches of government.

Which are themselves flawed. Which raises the question: Who watches the watchers? This is one of the biggest flaw in the system you defend.

There was a mob on January 6th. But, the NAACP is not a mob, the ACLU is not a mob. Think tanks across the nation are not mobs.

I'm not seeing the relevance.

Flaws in the system are far more tolerable than the havoc that would eventually ensue by relying on chance.

First you have to show that it WOULD result in havoc. And it wouldn't always be chance. In fact, a king would RARELY be chosen by chance, once a lineage had been established. Remember, choosing the king via lottery is only done upon instituting the proposed government (see OP), or when a king dies and doesn't have a son to succeed him.

Why do . . .like lottery selection?

Casting lots causes contentions to cease, And keeps the mighty apart. - Proverbs 18:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs18:18&version=NKJV

Lottery has been used anciently to decide divisive issues peacefully. Selecting leadership by lottery avoids the terrible side effects of democracies and republics.

Some decisions are best made with great deliberation and with input from many viewpoints.

Are you saying a king cannot deliberate or have input from the people he governs?

Democracies can crumble.

They crumble much faster than do monarchies, and certainly much faster than constitutional monarchies.

That does not mean Democracies are no good.

You seem to be under the impression that there exists a "good form of government." There isn't, simply because any government on earth contains man as part of that government. Man is inherently flawed, evil. Thus, the "best" form of government is one with as few men in power as possible.

A leader selected by chance is no smarter than any citizens

Yes, and? Better a citizen chosen at random than someone who has the detestable desire to lord it over one’s neighbor, which incites the worst of men to campaign for office.

and that fact that he is imbued with absolute power

No one said the king would be given absolute power.

does not make him competent.

And you think 4-8 years is enough time for someone to become competent at leading a nation? And no, years spent as a politician don't count, since they're not the leader, only someone in power.

The executive branch has power to make immediate decisions when the situation warrants.

And how long do those decisions usually take, from the moment they're proposed, to the moment they're decided upon? Weeks? Months? years?

A single person could decide such matters in a moment.

Decisions about foreign affairs and national security can be made swiftly.

And can be made even more swiftly with a single person leading the nation, no committee required.

Other decisons of domestic policy and spending is controlled by congress.

Moot.

The government's only responsibilities are infrastructure and criminal justice (including foreign). Beyond that, it doesn't have the authority to set policies or determine how much should be spent.

Slow an deliberate.

Such is unnecessary, and only inhibits the function of government.

This is a preferable scenario.

How is the government running like a machine gummed up with molasses a preferable situation compared to a government running like a well oiled machine?

Otherwise, we would get leaders passing laws based on their own limited opinions -- possibly treating matters of style like they are matters of substance.

This is a problem your form of government seeks to address, but that mine doesn't even have to deal with.

Under the proposed government, laws are set in stone.

Correct principles of governance do not change. To the extent a constitution reflects true principles of governance, to that extent it needs no alteration. Any amendment process fails to realize that over time, institutions do not improve, but degenerate. Incremental changes to a government tend to deteriorate it morally, not improve it.

The same applies to a nation's criminal code.

As for legislatures:

Laws should be discovered, not created. Laws should not multiply endlessly. Human nature compels legislatures to constantly create new, and increasingly destructive, laws. True criminal law is nonarbitrary. Arbitrary criminal law is more harmful than, and causes, crime. Good criminal law is overwhelmingly negative law, yet legislatures obsess with positive law. Principles of governance are nonarbitrary. Arbitrary governance usurps deity and destroys a nation. The king, not a committee, has the authority to amend only America’s Code of Use. Membership on a committee enables individuals to blame poor performance on the group. Even legislators who voted for admittedly bad law blame the legislature, not themselves. Generally, direction from an individual is more trustworthy than from a committee.

Even a super-majority vote in the senate involves agreement of only 60% of the senators. Unanimity is not a requirement in ANY government decision in a Democratic Republic.

Which is, again, moot under the proposed government.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Continuing the discussion here from another thread:



Thank you for agreeing with me.

A government that can respond quickly can handle situations requiring immediate answers far more quickly than one with a bureaucracy.
Democratic Republics have real time decision-making power where it is warranted. Acts of war, diplomacy, and executive orders can happen with a quickness.
As opposed to the guaranteed oppression and harm done by democracies and republics? I'll take the chance of a good king over a guarantee of an oppressive majority.
People can apply the golden rule because they do not have absolute power. They are checked by a wish to maintain their own freedoms so they tread lightly on others overall. Tyrannical leaders do not have any incentive to obey the golden rule.
Government should protect minorities from the majority.

The Federal government checks State government impositions on personal right's, and vice versa.
Thus government should protect minorities from majority rule, not impose it upon them. More likely the majority will exploit a minority, than a minority misuse the majority. Democracy empowers the majority to abuse any minority: the rich, white males, Christians, etc.

The Bill of Rights and the Federal Court safeguard against this concern to a degree.
As opposed to the same amount of power being given to hundreds or even millions of people?

Tell me how that wouldn't increase their hubris, egotism, and bloodlust.

Power is dispersed among the people. This also mean the power is diluted, so the dangers of tyranny and oppression are greatly reduced.
Better living under one tyrant three thousand miles away, than under three thousand tyrants one mile away, though counting yourself among them.

There are not three thousand tyrants by definition.
I've been advocating this position since 2015
And, you ironically make your contentions as strongly even when there is a powerful example why your view is wrong currently on the world stage.
And yes, Putin is wrong in doing such things for multiple reasons. But Zelenskyy isn't much better, by comparison.

Foolish thing to say given one is committing war crimes. Zelensky's earlier corruption now pales in comparison to the murder of innocents perpetrated by Putin. One would think your religion would supply you with better judgment and keener morals. It has not.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Democratic Republics have real time decision-making power where it is warranted.

And so do Monarchies. Better yet, there's a single point of accountability that DRs just don't have.

Acts of war, diplomacy, and executive orders can happen with a quickness.

And a king can do the same.

People can apply the golden rule because they do not have absolute power. They are checked by a wish to maintain their own freedoms so they tread lightly on others overall.

Morally, the majority sinks to the level permitted by government. If the majority is the government, nothing can stop a nation’s decline.

The majority is not good, as liberals contend, but evil, and steers a nation in its wicked way.

Tyrannical leaders do not have any incentive to obey the golden rule.

"Democracy is more cruel than war or tyrants." - Seneca the Younger

And even an evil King knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s actions.

The Federal government checks State government impositions on personal right's, and vice versa.

Irrelevant to what I said, which was that the government should protect minorities from the majority.

The Bill of Rights and the Federal Court safeguard against this concern to a degree.

Except when it doesn't.

Power is dispersed among the people. This also mean the power is diluted, so the dangers of tyranny and oppression are greatly reduced.

51% has no inherent right to compel the 49%.

There are not three thousand tyrants by definition.

It was a paraphrase of a question asked by Mather Byles: "Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" (A variation of which was used by Mel Gibson in the movie The Patriot.)

And yes, there are, when the government is the people.

And, you ironically make your contentions as strongly even when there is a powerful example why your view is wrong currently on the world stage.

Just FYI:

Screenshot_20220315-113218.png

Russia has a similar form of government to our current government.

I'm advocating a Constitutional MONARCHY. I am against Democracies and Republics in all forms.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Alright, let's see if I can jump back into this...

Those saved under the dispensation of grace are no longer under God's law nor even sin itself and absolutely will not receive any punishment whatsoever for anything.

I agree, but I was mostly referring to humanity in general, not the Body of Christ.

That, however, is only true because the punishment we deserve has already been suffered by Christ.

With that singular exception, the answer to your question is, of course, yes, the whole world is under sin (Rom. 3:9, Gal 3:22) including anyone holding the office of king, but that isn't really relevant. It is basically the wrong question because we are not talking directly about God's law or even sin and morality in general.

I think you're forgetting one crucial detail regarding the proposed constitution.

That it seeks to codify the moral laws ("do not steal, do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not covet") while enforcing Biblical principles.

From the "Political Defence of The Constitution of America" document I have:


Christianity is true and other religions are false. So a government should be founded on biblical truths. Correct principles of governance do not change.



In other words, violating the law (such as the proposed constitution, were it implemented) IS violating God's law, because as stated by Paul in Romans 13, we are to obey the government, because they are God's ministers. And while that's immediately applicable to Christians, it also applies to the rest of humanity, no?

We are talking about human government, a dispensation that began with Noah and that is still in effect to this day.

Yes.

When a murderer stands before God on judgment day, God is not going to be citing the U.S. Constitution nor any aspect of the U.S. criminal code.

Agreed.

He will be citing "Do not murder."

And if our laws state "Do not murder," it's not "our" law, per se, but God's.

The murderer will not be in jeopardy before God because he broke the laws that were on the books in the country where he committed his crime nor will he be in jeopardy because he broke one of the Ten Commandments. Those criminal codes have to do with how human government deals with criminals, not how God deals with them. On judgement day, all such criminal codes will be meaningless because once you are physically dead, the law has nothing more to say to or about you. You have passed out from under its jurisdiction.

Is it sinful to break the law? Sure it is, at least it is most of the time,

Agreed on all of this.

but it isn't the law that God's judgment will be about but about the sin itself, which is sort of your point, right?

The crime of disobeying the law is a sin.

It's both a sin and a crime for a king to break the law, regardless of whether he faces any earthly judgement.

A king who is above the law of the land

Correction: A king who ACTS above of the law of the land which he governs...

Just because he acts without regard to the law doesn't mean he is actually above the law.

is still under God's authority and still under sin if he be without Christ and so, as I said, of course, yes, even if an evil king can't be prosecuted in a human court, he will stand before God on judgment day.

Agreed.

Don't you think it would be better for him to have the threat of a human court before standing before God's judgment?

And what if that court is corrupt? Are you going to have a check or balance for that too?

Isn't it true that righteous laws would have the same deterrent effect on a king as they have on the king's subjects?

Likely, but as the supreme ruler of the land, the king would have final say over his own trial. And "what about a human court to oversee such a trial" is answered above.

Why should the king be held in a place above the law?

He's not. He's held in a place under the law, regardless of his actions.

From the "Political Defence" document again:


· Man cannot devise a system of checks and balances likely to produce just leadership.
· That one man may rule justly is far more probable than that a committee of men will do so.
· Impeachment committees will be corrupted by bad leaders, or eventually usurp authority from the good.
· Giving “the people” charge over an impeachment committee guarantees nothing but growing corruption.
· A human government cannot prevent tyranny; such a government would be an illusion, denying reality.
· No practical authority can exist above the leader, or else that authority would be the leader.
· Authority flows downhill, not uphill, and certainly not in a circle. There must be an ultimate ruler somewhere.
· No constitution can devise a separation of powers that actually produces good government.
· Thus as the supreme human authority in the land the king must have final say over all other men.
· Good eventually wins. So America will see vengeance against a wicked king at least by Judgment Day.

 

Hoping

Well-known member
Those saved under the dispensation of grace are no longer under God's law nor even sin itself and absolutely will not receive any punishment whatsoever for anything. That, however, is only true because the punishment we deserve has already been suffered by Christ.
Are you aware of Rom 5:21..."That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." ?
No righteousness...no grace.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Are you aware of Rom 5:21..."That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." ?
No righteousness...no grace.

Start a new thread, please.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Are you aware of Rom 5:21..."That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." ?
No righteousness...no grace.
Rom 5:17-21 (AKJV/PCE)
(5:17) For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) (5:18) Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life. (5:19) For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (5:20) Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: (5:21) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Your righteousness will not save you.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
And so do Monarchies. Better yet, there's a single point of accountability that DRs just don't have.
And a king can do the same.

Track the conversation instead of allowing yourself to drift. We established that decisions can be made fast by a monarch or dictator. No need to bring that up again as if I disagreed. My point was that a President can make decisions just as as quick in a few defined areas. The President has a similar point of accountability in those type of decisions.
Morally, the majority sinks to the level permitted by government. If the majority is the government, nothing can stop a nation’s decline.

The majority is not good, as liberals contend, but evil, and steers a nation in its wicked way.

Government does not make most decisions by referendum so your claim makes no sense.
"Democracy is more cruel than war or tyrants." - Seneca the Younger
Appeal to Authority/ Antiquity.
And even an evil King knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s actions.

And you think that will be a strong deterrence? Compare that to the immediate threat of impeachment or removal by 25th amendment. Trump's people openly said the winners control history or who cares about how this looks in history, I will be long dead. Pompeo and Barr.
Irrelevant to what I said, which was that the government should protect minorities from the majority.
No, its absolutely relevant. Think the Civil War and federal mandates to follow fair voting standards across race despite state efforts to pass laws for a poll tax or educational test.
51% has no inherent right to compel the 49%.
Its a republic not strict democracy. Decisions are not made by direct popularity contest. Laws that explicitly limit human rights are struck down. Like laws against same gender sex among adults. The majority of straights who find it distasteful cannot enact a law against so-called sodomy.
It was a paraphrase of a question asked by Mather Byles: "Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" (A variation of which was used by Mel Gibson in the movie The Patriot.)

Yeah I know. It is a rhetorically clever statement that is realistically nonsensical.
Just FYI:

View attachment 2926

Russia has a similar form of government to our current government.

I'm advocating a Constitutional MONARCHY. I am against Democracies and Republics in all forms.
Russia is a Dictatorship based on a farce. So, maybe it is not a Constitutional monarchy but once a leader is installed, it functions like one and it functions corruptly and dangerously. This is corruption on a scale 1000 fold that of what we see in the US.
 
Last edited:
Top