Constitutional Monarchy

[JudgeRightly]

I don't understand how you find so many words to say in response

I’ll try to keep things shorter, but I’m also trying to be as clear as possible, because your proposed solution has consequences you have not accounted for, and so far have not addressed.

(I'm also really passionate about this topic.)

to such a simple concept as not setting a man in a de-facto position above the law, which you admit is precisely what your proposed system would do.

No, I do not admit that.

I admit that the king would have no superior earthly civil court above him.

That is not the same thing as being above the law.

The king is under God’s law. He is under the Constitution. He is under the Criminal Code. If he violates them, he acts unlawfully. The fact that no domestic superior court exists above him does not make his crime lawful.

You are still treating “not prosecuted by a higher earthly court” as though it means “legally permitted.” That does not follow. Law can condemn even where no superior earthly court can prosecute.

If the nation in question had a covenant relationship with the living God such as what Israel had, everything you say would be valid, as it is, it's just a recipe for almost immediate and potentially permanent tyranny. The king in your proposed system would have both the motive and opportunity to exercise absolute power. To expect that it would not happen is naive.

This makes me think you didn't read my post fully, or at the very least, you missed my main point.

I have repeatedly acknowledged that an evil king may become a tyrant. That is a real danger.

But your proposal does not remove the danger of tyranny. It changes where the danger resides. Instead of one visible, mortal king who will eventually die, it creates a standing mechanism by which institutional forces can remove, intimidate, or control kings indefinitely.

That is the tradeoff I am objecting to.

Even so, I suspect that your proposed system as it sits would be superior to the one we live under now, at least initially, but it isn't likely to remain that way precisely because it ignores human nature

No, it does not ignore human nature.

It assumes human nature.

That is precisely why Bob was so concerned about juries, committees, democracies, republics, bureaucracies, and institutional power. Sinful men hide behind groups, processes, offices, and procedures. Responsibility gets diffused until no one is finally accountable.

The proposed constitutional monarchy does not pretend the king cannot be evil. It locates responsibility in one visible man.

and the axiom that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely” is not quite right. Power does not magically corrupt a righteous man; it gives corrupt men the opportunity to act on the corruption already in them.

But that cuts both ways. A corrupt king with final earthly authority is dangerous, but so is a corrupt judicial class with authority over the king. If power is dangerous in the hands of sinful men, then the power to remove the king is not made safe merely because it belongs to human judges.

Placing the king above the law is unjust, by definition. That single point along is enough to end the debate on this point - or ought to be.

Agreed.

But that's not my position.

My position is that the king is under the law, but not under a superior earthly civil office.

Not the same thing at all.

I say again, my proposed modification is only necessary precisely because we would not enjoy the special relationship with God that Israel enjoyed and it does not put the nation in danger of a tyrannical judiciary.

I understand why you think it is necessary. I disagree that it avoids the danger.

It may not create a judiciary that governs openly as king, but it does create a judiciary with final authority over whether the king remains king. That is enough to make every king rule under the shadow of the bench.

For that to happen, the judiciary would have to usurp the entire government as constituted, in which case we'd no longer be talking about the proposed system. The system we are discussing would have no legal means by which the judiciary could take control of the government in the place of a king. The selection of the king is already spelled out and so if one gets removed, the judiciary doesn't get to simply install either itself or someone of it's liking as king. The only thing that happens is that a new king is selected by constitutional means. In other words, the only people with the authority to remove a king have nothing to gain politically by doing so for any reason other than that the current king is corrupt. It's not like the government would work like a Klingon Battle Cruiser where if an officer is assassinated, everyone below him get a promotion.

All of this was addressed in my previous post. Please take note:

The judiciary does not need to install itself as king in order to exercise power over the throne.

It does not need to govern day-to-day in order to control what kind of king is tolerated.

It does not need to personally profit by taking the crown in order to profit by removing a righteous obstacle.

And it does not need to directly select the next king in order for removal to serve evil. Sometimes removing the good man is the whole point.

So the issue is not whether the judiciary formally becomes king. It's whether the judiciary, or whoever captures or influences it, can use the removal mechanism as a lawful-looking weapon against the king.

That remains my objection.

A king under law is one thing.

A king under judges is another.

 

[Nick M]

The king has to be above the law and all those in government. We don't have it now, and the Supreme Court shows with its hard left leaning. It is a 1-8 minority with Thomas alone on the right. And they get many things wrong, speaking strictly to the constitution. They rightly over turned Chevron Deference, and for the wrong reason. It is an Article 1 violation and that isn't the reason stated in her majority opinion. They already don't obey the law.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The king has to be above the law

The king has to be the final earthly civil authority, not "above the law."

The king is under the law, whether he likes it or not.

 

[Clete]

The king has to be the final earthly civil authority, not "above the law."

The king is under the law, whether he likes it or not.

If this is the case then what are we even talking about?

What is the legal penalty if the king rapes someone?

If you say anything other than that he is tried in court and executed upon conviction then don't talk to me about the king being under the law because he isn't.

You simply don't get to have it both ways. I don't except it when someone speaks out of one side of their mouth to insist that the king is under the law and then talk about how having a corrupt king with final earthly authority is dangerous! Why is it dangerous if he's under the law?

Also, the only false equivalence being presented here is this...

"A corrupt king with final earthly authority is dangerous, but so is a corrupt judicial class with authority over the king."

As if the judiciary magically because a fiat monarch by committee by virtue of the fact that a legal process exists that permits someone to do something about a corrupt king. That's ridiculous. Does the Senate become the President when they override a veto or when they impeach him? Does the Supreme Court abdicate the office of the Presidency when they rule against him in a particular case? NO! Of course they don't!

My modification allowing for the removal of a corrupt king doesn't somehow also give them the ability to make new law or in any other way become tyrannical. You can throw that out there as a sort of scare tactic but it isn't anything more than that. In effect, all you are really arguing is that there isn't any system that can be formulated at all that has any ability whatsoever to prevent or even mitigate tyranny. If that's the case then why bother discussing it?