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 enforcing a consequence.
The judge is applying the law.
Almost nobody would say, "Therefore, the judge is sovereign."
Why?
Because he is not exercising independent discretion. He's merely administering a legal consequence.
If this were not so, the phrase "the rule of law" would have no meaning.
Now modify the example:
If a king is convicted under a constitutionally prescribed process of committing specified constitutional violations, the judge shall certify the vacancy and initiate the succession process.
The judge is makes a determination.
The judge is enforces a consequence.
The judge simply applies the law.
You see a huge difference but there isn't one. It's nothing at all but the rule of law.
We, at least ostensibly have the rule of law in the United States now, but nobody imagines that statutes float through the air arresting people. Everyone understands that judges, juries, police officers, marshals, and soldiers are applying the law. The phrase "rule of law" refers to the source of authority and legitimacy, not to the physical actor(s) carrying out the action.
There is another aspect of this that I don't think you've addressed.
You keep speaking as though a removal mechanism necessarily creates a permanent alternative center of power over the throne. That simply does not follow.
Under my proposed modification, if a king is lawfully removed for egregious constitutional violations, the judges do not become rulers. They do not become an aristocracy. They do not become a parliament. They do not inherit the powers of the throne. The throne simply becomes vacant and the normal succession process takes over, just as it would if the king died.
So let me ask a direct question:
Once the king is removed, where exactly do you believe the authority of the judges goes?
Under my proposal, it goes nowhere. They simply continue being the same judges in the same jurisdictions they had before the king was charged. The only thing that changes is that a new king is selected according to the constitutional process and the monarchy continues.
Even if I grant your worst-case scenario and assume corrupt judges fabricate charges against a righteous king, what follows? Have they become sovereign? Have they become the governing authority? Not necessarily. Unless they have also corrupted the succession process itself, the result is simply that one king has been wrongly removed and another king takes his place.
That is certainly a serious problem, but it is a different problem from the one you keep describing.
More importantly, if the judges are already corrupt enough to knowingly violate the Constitution, fabricate charges, and unjustly remove a king, then they are already outside the legal order. At that point, why would they be incapable of violating the Constitution in some other manner if no removal mechanism existed?
If they are willing to overthrow the law, the problem is not the existence of a removal mechanism, the problem is the corruption of the judges.
In fact, consider what I see as the two worst-case scenarios.
Scenario A:
A wicked king openly violates the Constitution for forty years. He appoints judges, influences regional authorities, raises and prepares an heir, entrenches corruption throughout the system, and eventually passes the throne to a son who continues the same pattern. There is no lawful remedy available anywhere in the system.
Scenario B:
Corrupt judges falsely accuse and wrongly remove a righteous king. The throne becomes vacant. The constitutional succession process is followed. A new king is installed. The judges return to being judges.
Both scenarios are bad. Neither is desirable, but I do not see is why Scenario B is obviously more dangerous than Scenario A.
On the contrary, Scenario A appears to be far more stable, self-perpetuating, and capable of corrupting the nation for generations.
So I still come back to the same question:
Why is the danger posed by a limited removal mechanism greater than the danger posed by a king who cannot be removed at all?
It seems to me that the worst-case outcome of my proposal is not that the judges become rulers, but simply that one king is wrongly removed and replaced by another king according to the same constitutional process that would have been used had the original king died.
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 enforcing a consequence.
The judge is applying the law.
Almost nobody would say, "Therefore, the judge is sovereign."
Why?
Because he is not exercising independent discretion. He's merely administering a legal consequence.
If this were not so, the phrase "the rule of law" would have no meaning.
Now modify the example:
If a king is convicted under a constitutionally prescribed process of committing specified constitutional violations, the judge shall certify the vacancy and initiate the succession process.
The judge is makes a determination.
The judge is enforces a consequence.
The judge simply applies the law.
You see a huge difference but there isn't one. It's nothing at all but the rule of law.
We, at least ostensibly have the rule of law in the United States now, but nobody imagines that statutes float through the air arresting people. Everyone understands that judges, juries, police officers, marshals, and soldiers are applying the law. The phrase "rule of law" refers to the source of authority and legitimacy, not to the physical actor(s) carrying out the action.
There is another aspect of this that I don't think you've addressed.
You keep speaking as though a removal mechanism necessarily creates a permanent alternative center of power over the throne. That simply does not follow.
Under my proposed modification, if a king is lawfully removed for egregious constitutional violations, the judges do not become rulers. They do not become an aristocracy. They do not become a parliament. They do not inherit the powers of the throne. The throne simply becomes vacant and the normal succession process takes over, just as it would if the king died.
So let me ask a direct question:
Once the king is removed, where exactly do you believe the authority of the judges goes?
Under my proposal, it goes nowhere. They simply continue being the same judges in the same jurisdictions they had before the king was charged. The only thing that changes is that a new king is selected according to the constitutional process and the monarchy continues.
Even if I grant your worst-case scenario and assume corrupt judges fabricate charges against a righteous king, what follows? Have they become sovereign? Have they become the governing authority? Not necessarily. Unless they have also corrupted the succession process itself, the result is simply that one king has been wrongly removed and another king takes his place.
That is certainly a serious problem, but it is a different problem from the one you keep describing.
More importantly, if the judges are already corrupt enough to knowingly violate the Constitution, fabricate charges, and unjustly remove a king, then they are already outside the legal order. At that point, why would they be incapable of violating the Constitution in some other manner if no removal mechanism existed?
If they are willing to overthrow the law, the problem is not the existence of a removal mechanism, the problem is the corruption of the judges.
In fact, consider what I see as the two worst-case scenarios.
Scenario A:
A wicked king openly violates the Constitution for forty years. He appoints judges, influences regional authorities, raises and prepares an heir, entrenches corruption throughout the system, and eventually passes the throne to a son who continues the same pattern. There is no lawful remedy available anywhere in the system.
Scenario B:
Corrupt judges falsely accuse and wrongly remove a righteous king. The throne becomes vacant. The constitutional succession process is followed. A new king is installed. The judges return to being judges.
Both scenarios are bad. Neither is desirable, but I do not see is why Scenario B is obviously more dangerous than Scenario A.
On the contrary, Scenario A appears to be far more stable, self-perpetuating, and capable of corrupting the nation for generations.
So I still come back to the same question:
Why is the danger posed by a limited removal mechanism greater than the danger posed by a king who cannot be removed at all?
It seems to me that the worst-case outcome of my proposal is not that the judges become rulers, but simply that one king is wrongly removed and replaced by another king according to the same constitutional process that would have been used had the original king died.