Search results

I'm not avoiding anything. You are asking me to do something and then setting the parameters such that doing so is impossible. Please describe for what Cyan is, but do so without evoking the concept of "blueness".

I'm not retreating, I just can't make myself read 1950 words written in response to seven sentences. You claim I deny things that I open acknowledge, you somehow think that because the law doesn't affirmatively sanction tyranny, the fact that it doesn't punish it is somehow irrelevant and you...

Repeating our positions is all that there's been left to do for over a month. The arguments have been made repeatedly on both sides and repeating the position is simply invoking the same arguments. I am not the one here with the burden of proof, you are. You are the one who needs to demonstrate...

It's the same arguments! I've answered these issue many times before. There is no such thing as a perfect system. "Who removes the removers?" defeats EVERY form of government anyone could ever conceive of, including the one you are here defending. The only difference is the answer one gives and...

I am referring only to matters of law and criminal justice, not the kings character per se and there would be no committee that sits around waiting for the king to commit a crime. I am not talking about forming some sort of parliament but merely granting injured parties the right to bring suit...

It would hardly be any worse - in principle. That is, there is no need for a legislature but there is a need to see to it that the king is, in fact and in reality and in this life required to obey the governing document that grants him his authority. Otherwise, you do not have the rule of law.

Your arguments that aren't semantic in nature all boil down to choosing which worst case scenario you prefer, to which my response remains the same. Pointing out a different worst case scenario does not prove your system is better. It simply proves it to be different. When human nature and the...

Perhaps, but I see no necessity to settle for one tyrant over many. How about a system that doesn't tolerate tyrants to begin with; a system where the king is seated with the understanding that his authority does not extend beyond the letter of the law and that if he flagrantly defies that law...

Which I have been responding to directly all along. That's the whole discussion. If there is no authority to enforce the law when the king breaks it then the king is above the law - by definition. And it's worse now than you think. The fact is that I have been defending a constitutional...

Finally admitted it?! I've never denied it! Yes, that's why the men who created America, wisely created a system where there are three separate branches that each check the power of the other two. Unbelievably wise thing to do that has propelled this country well beyond any achievement that any...

It is above the king. The law is above the king. Those who enforce the law, enforce it against those who are under it. It is the only way such a system would work without creating a tyrant. That's proven by the whole history of government. As for responding to you entire post, there isn't any...

I barely had time to even read all of that. Bob's proposed constitution is a human institution. As proposed, it is installing a king that has carte blanche to do whatever he desires to do. As such, it is doomed to failure, very likely near immediate failure. It cannot be made to work - at least...

No doubt!

(y) Two things here. First, your premise seems to be more than just that authority flows downward from God. Your premise is that it is a unidirectional flow even after such authority reaches a human government; that there can be no such thing as shared authority and that any sort of check or...

Assuming your story is true, you have an idiot pastor and he has an idiot student. The blind leading the blind. As for your pastor, he seems not to understand the difference between talking to God (prayer) and talking to an audience (very common among modern pastors, by the way). As for you...

It isn't the mere use of personal pronouns that is the problem! Of course you knew that when you wrote this silly comment. Where do "your ideas" come from? Should people take "your ideas" seriously on the basis of the mere fact that you showed up to present them? The answer to those questions...

I answered your question the best way I know how. This is not a yes or no question either. It depends on how the system is structured. Generally speaking, the king occupies the highest office and does not normally answer to anyone. In Bob's proposed system, that position is absolute, but it...

Asked and answered.

They should be. The king is not under the law in the proposed constitution, except in theory and only barely that, it seems. The population is left to wait out the life span of a rogue king and just hope that his heir isn't as bad or worse.

Once again, this would only be so if the judges wrote the law or could remove the king by fiat. If all they are doing is performing a legal duty then it is not the men but the law that is removing the king by the same authority by which it also seated him. Only if they are the source of the...