Every actual constitutional monarchy is a liberal democracy.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Which is why the rule of law and all the other liberal democratic institutions are permanent requirements. Liberal democracy exists because the philosophers who first imagined it, and the American founders who first put it all into place, all acknowledged this inherent flaw in unfettered, absolute democracy.
A little leavin leavins the whole lump.
We started the U.S. with about 1/6th of the government being democratically elected by the people. The House of Representatives was the only half of one of the three branches of government that had its members elected by popular vote. The Senate wasn't elected that way and neither was the President and since the Judicial branch is seated by judges selected by the President there was a time when it was the branch furthest removed from political considerations (i.e. popular opinion).
Today, nearly all of that is up in smoke, not only because of the insidious nature of democracy but because the press is allowed to lie to the citizenry in exchange for political favors handed down by politicians.
I agree with that last point.
It is the central premise of the whole idea behind what we are calling a constitutional monarchy.
Then who does?
And if you say God, then how does He inform us what the laws are? And if you say Scripture then who is authorized to interpret the Scripture? And I know you're not going to say that there is an office authorized by God that is the earthly source of the authoritative interpretation of Scripture. Because that's Catholic. I know you don't believe that.
There isn't any need for interpretation. All that is needed is to read it. There is a quite complete criminal justice system laid out for us in the bible and it isn't complicated. There are some minor points that some might dispute but they are not sufficient to undermine the whole.
More importantly, it should be kept in mind that the proposed system is not presented as a perfect system. It isn't perfect nor will there ever be any system that is perfect until God Himself comes and rules the Earth Himself. So long as man is involved in the formation and maintenance of a governmental system, that system will be flawed. The idea here is to minimize those flaws and to mitigate their effect on society. A goal that the founders of America had in mind, by the way. The goal here is no different in principle, its just the same attempt only by as different, less humanistic and more biblically faithful method.
Japan was, but it collapsed when the military started directing civilian society.
Quite so. I stand corrected.
This reminds me of an important point. We are not proposing a constitutional monarchy for the sake of proposing a constitutional monarchy. It isn't just that particular form of government but it is that form of government with a just constitution and a just criminal code. And by just I mean really just where the concept of justice is in keeping with righteousness as defined by God's word.
The constitutional monarchies that have existed up to this point in history have or will fail, not because of their form of government but because their laws were / are unjust.
Imperial Japan was not a dictatorship.
Well Japan has quite a long history so perhaps we're both right. In the thirties Japan was basically Fascist, not too dissimilar in form to Nazi Germany.
That's the rule of law and separation of powers at work.
The rule of law, yes. I do not see how the separation of powers applies here. No branch of the government would have authority to make new law in the proposed system.
Who then holds the monarch accountable? I've seen where it's said that the monarch will be judged by the Lord, but that means there's no redress of wrongs possible in this world, for the monarch's subjects, under the proposed government?
I agree that this is a major flaw in the proposed system. There needs to be some way to remove a rogue king from power short of a bloody civil war.
OK, so again that's constitutionalism and rule of law, but still how is the monarch held accountable?
As proposed, he isn't. As proposed the king sits in a position above the law. It is a major major flaw in my opinion as I have been arguing here for some time.
It would seem we are more in agreement than not on most points.