Recent content by JudgeRightly

No, it wasn't. You're making this way more difficult than it has to be. It's a simple yes or no question about your principles. Fine, different question: are the king and the judges coordinate offices under the law, each with distinct authority and jurisdiction? In other words, neither office...

That's not what I asked. Are the judges and the king under the law in principle?

Are judges and kings under the law?

If judges have final say over whether the king remains king, then they are sovereign over the kingship, whatever else you may call it. They may not be sovereign over every royal function, but they are sovereign over his continued possession of the office. That's the contradiction I've been...

How does authority flow, Clete? From top to bottom, yes? From God, to government, to men?

I still think that, because you have not convinced me otherwise. That is exactly why I am asking you, yet again, to demonstrate that I am wrong. There is nothing contradictory about saying, “I think your proposal fails on principle,” and then asking you to specify the proposal so that the...

There is nothing contradictory about saying, “I think your proposal falls into a dilemma,” and then asking you to specify the proposal so that the dilemma can be tested. Correct. I am skeptical of your position. The onus probandi is on you to convince me otherwise. "Onus probandi incumbit ei...

My contention is that once you specify the mechanism, it will either be too weak to restrain the king or strong enough to become the real final earthly authority. “Narrow jurisdiction,” “high evidentiary standard,” “limited removable offenses,” “defined triggering process,” and “defined...

Sure, history is replete with wicked kings, wicked heirs, and corrupt dynasties. But history is not replete with nations governed by anything like this proposed Constitution. Most historical monarchies were pagan kingdoms, Catholic kingdoms, divine-right absolutist systems, hereditary power...

And the HPT. Let me take a different approach here. As itchy as I am to respond to the many things you said in your post here, I'm going to refrain. Let's say I grant you your position. Let’s say the king needs a lawful removal mechanism. Let’s say civil disobedience is not enough. Let’s...

Which is my point exactly! Clete has it in his head that a wicked king is not only possible, but guaranteed within a short period of time, and not only that, but that his wickedness (which his heir will apparently also follow in his footsteps) will destroy the nation within a generation or two...

Exactly. My position is internally consistent, which is why your objections keep running into the same distinction. If that same distinction answers you through judges, venue, civil disobedience, “rule of law,” legal recompense, and constitutional enforcement, then maybe it is not a dodge or...

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...