Search results

@JudgeRightly, Yet another new direction from which to make the same essential point.... Civil disobedience is explicitly sanctioned by the proposed constitution... "Any amendment or command issued by the King in defiance of this Constitution including one that increases taxes, gives all...

I cannot imaging how it is possible for you to write something on the order of a 2000 word response to such a simple post and you do so without finding anything new to say. The point I made wasn't about hierarchy so much as it was about the fact that a criminal is treated like a criminal even...

Judges under the proposed Constitution are not sitting in hierarchical seats of power where only some higher authority can prosecute them. If a sitting judge commits murder, perjury, fraud, conspiracy, or any other crime, he is charged and tried exactly the same way as any other person. The fact...

It 100% does answer it and it does so without any possible refutation. The difference between judges ignoring the law and a king who sits above the law doing so is precise the fact that the judges (or magistrates or whomever) are subject to the law. That's the whole difference! The question is...

"So, let's throw out checks and balances!" is your solution? You are literally making the Shakespearean argument, "Kill all the lawyers!" I'm not sure if you've ever looked into what is going on in that portion of that play but you should look into it.

There is no need to spend three hours responding to each point.

Our disagreement comes down to what it means to have rule of law. The rule of law exists when rulers and subjects alike are governed by law rather than by the personal discretion of men; where all persons and institutions exercise authority under known, established legal standards rather than...

Okay JudgeRightly, let's look at this a slightly different way... Let's say that a king publicly renounces the Constitution and abdicates the throne and a judge certifies the vacancy and initiate the succession process. Who is sovereign? The judge is making a determination. The judge is...

I just cannot understand how you can find so much to say on a point we've belabored for months. I am addressing the point specifically and directly. Your objection is the equivalent to objecting to such a law on the basis that it is a law. Of course it produces a permanent means to remove the...

I'm not sure you've posted enough of the author's argument to fully evaluate his position. My difficulty with treating information as a purely physical property is that information is never simply "matter arranged in a particular way." Information exists only insofar as distinct states are...

I do not make bald assertions! First of all, we've been discussing this for months - years! Secondly, and far more importantly, I explained why it wasn't relevant. There is way whatsoever that it was appropriate to say such thing to me. If you disagree with the argument I've made then refute the...

The fact that the provision in the law is permanently there is COMPLETELY NOT RELEVANT!!!! Every provision in the law is permanent! Including the one you are defending that allows a tyrant to reign unchecked for decades and potentially for generations. The fact that you are willing to tolerate...

I keep trying to boil this down to what I think is our core disagreement. Under the proposed system as written, there is no earthly safeguard against a king who openly violates the Constitution for thirty years, perhaps longer, and produces an heir who is equally tyrannical, and so on for...

Okay, so I fed as much as I could of Bob's material into, and had some lengthy discussion with, ChatGPT on the subject of a Code of Use and then had it produce a Code of Use that it thought Bob would likely have approved of. Let me know what you think of this result... America's Code of Use...

The point is that this is not an argument! Precedent can be wrong - and often is! Not in the classical sense of the term. It isn't "Open Theism" that "infers" this. The bible teaches it explicitly. Open Theism simply acknowledges the biblical teaching. In no case is it an "inference". Not...

Alright, well then I had the constitution and criminal codes already. I was just thinking that the criminal code was longer than what I had and I didn't have a code of use at all, which makes sense if he never wrote it.

@JudgeRightly, If you have it, could you post the full text of the proposed constitution, the criminal code and the code of use and whatever other original documents you've got that are relevant to this discussion?

No, you don't get to take home the whole basket because I decided to stop arguing over your use of terminology. Even with my modification, it is still a constitutional monarchy, who's king is the sovereign of the nation so long as he doesn't abdicate that authority by ignoring the law that...

It's interesting that I didn't even bother to read the passages he cited. They don't teach omni-anything, in the classical meaning of the terms.

A near perfect definition of an appeal to tradition fallacy. It is not an inference or an implication. We state it outright that God does not know the future in any sense similar to what Classical Christian dogma teaches. We do not state that because we pull it out of the clear blue sky but...