Search results

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...

Ultimately, as is the case for all rightful authority, it originates with God. From there, however, authority is distributed by law from, to and through various offices for various purposes. That is what the rule of law means. A king does not rule simply by virtue of his birth. He rules because...

Everything before the bolded comment above was wasted time. Both for you to type and for me to read and even that either missed or ignored the point that had been made. You are asking to prove something that your premises will not allow before it has ever been presented. You've taken away the...

This is not the answer I expected. Every other statement you've made indicated to me that you believed that the mere existence of any such mechanism would break the entire structure by introducing an internal contradiction that would be systemically fatal. Indeed, based on the whole of this...

It's hard to understand how it can be that you don't see your own contradictory statements. You make it quite clear that you believe that there can be no such mechanism; that any mechanism strong enough to be effective would be usurpative by definition and then in the next breath you want to me...

That's only partially true. The HPT isn't Bob's work and it is only portions of it that I disagree with. I find it's basic premise quite plausible. This is a much more productive direction! If my criticism of Bob’s proposal is correct, then the next step would be to write the failsafe. I have...

Because history is replete with nations that "waited out" a wicked king to be replaced with his heir who turned out to be wonderfully righteous in spite of having been raised and trained by the wicked king.

It's clearly a rationalization. I've never said it was a dodge. See what I mean? Rationalization! No, he cannot. Commands do not make themselves. It's the king's command that is being judged. Indeed, it is specifically whether the actions of the king are legal that is being judge - by men -...

@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...