Posting this here so I remember it later. No need to respond.
Constitutional Monarchy
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Man! That guy sure knows how to turn a phrase. I love it when people say so much in a single sentence like that!
I find it interesting that the Anglican Church is worth 2 billion dollars and all Presbyterian 1st world churches is 200 million dollars. The Church of England is 2 billion dollars? Is this some bones or what? Trafalgar Square? St. Pauls? Constitutional Monarchy? Where is the Republic of Oliver Cromwell or the Republic of the United States of America without the concern of Christendom or acknowledgment thereof?
A King of the US must be born in the United States? That isn't the office or function, they run to and from Rome , Bonnie Prince Charlie? Most Communist Countries just flopped over to some ultra-RELIGIOUS mumbo jumbo, some junta.
A King of the US must be born in the United States? That isn't the office or function, they run to and from Rome , Bonnie Prince Charlie? Most Communist Countries just flopped over to some ultra-RELIGIOUS mumbo jumbo, some junta.
That post made no sense.
Yeah, I banned him. Seems like just a thought vomit account.
No worries.
And I think it would be, even if we didn't have a way to remove an evil king.
I'll explain why below.
Alright, so, I think I have an answer to the whole conundrum of having a means of removing an evil king.
There's a saying that I heard within the last year, most prominently on the Making The Argument podcast with Nick Freitas. It goes something like this:
Good times make weak men.
Weak men make hard times.
Hard times make strong men.
Strong men make good times.
And so the cycle repeats.
The idea being that, at least to some extent, the cycle between good times and hard times is cyclical, and the duration of each is determined by the quality of men in your society.
Now, I don't 100% hold to this, but I can't really find any fault with it, and certainly what it says is true, at least to some extent.
I also think it has value here in this discussion (obviously, or I wouldn't have brought it up).
Before I get into why, I want to say that I'm glad we've had this discussion, and that you've been patient with me as I take months to mull this discussion over in my brain before each of my posts, and that if I hadn't been allowed to, I think I would have conceded this discussion long ago. But I think I have an answer.
You make a compelling case for being able to implement a system for removing an evil king, and while I'm not 100% convinced you're right, I'd like to cede the argument (at least for the moment) to you on whether we COULD have one, and ask you to consider this argument on whether we SHOULD have such a system, and this is where the above comes into play. It comes down to the law of unintended consequences.
Even if we could come up with an even halfway deccent system for removing an evil king, I don't think we should.
An evil king is, generally speaking, a weak man.
If you remove the weak men from the picture, you might delay the inevitable hard times, but you still run the risk of having another weak man take his place. Meanwhile, the good times are still producing more and more weak men, and soon knowledge on how to become strong men becomes scarce. Finally, the hard times kicks in, and instead of those hard times creating strong men, as a result of losing at least some of the knowledge on how to be strong men, at best you get mediocre men. And now, without the strong men, you can no longer produce good times.
Removing the weak men in an effort to mitigate the hard times, will only produce more hard times, because in doing so, you remove the ability for the weak men to become strong men, as they're stuck in the good times, because there is no opportunity for growth.
However, if you leave the weak man in charge, he will make hard times. Those hard times will produce strong men, and even the weak king could grow and learn from his mistakes, and become strong, and thus strong men make good times.
In other words, removing the weak man from the throne during good times runs a higher risk of having another weak man take his place, and potentially weaker than the one removed. Sure, it means you might get a strong man, but it isn't as likely as getting a weak man.
Something else to consider is that if such a system of removal were implemented, the only consequence of an evil kings actions are that he's removed, and perhaps punished, but his legacy will that he was removed... which prevents him from making things right.
So with the likelihood of getting another weak man to rule instead of a strong man being higher, and now you have hard times across the nation, sure, eventually you'll get a strong man, but you also run the risk of progressing to mediocrity.
Additionally, and probably more importantly, removing the weak king teaches that the king won't have to deal with the lasting consequences of his actions, because he'll be removed from his throne long before the corrections are made and the nation recovers.
Removing the weak/wicked king teaches men that instead of being held to a higher standard, the leader of their nation doesn't have to face the earthly consequences of their actions, while they the citizenry do, and it slowly weakens the nation by producing more and more weak men and fewer and fewer strong men, and it runs a higher risk of replaing an evil king with an even more evil king, where a strong and good king is far less likely, as a result of the formerly good times turned mediocre.
There was a post today that I quoted from (I presume) someone who was at least semi-conservative, who had posted a tiktok of a woman who was a divorce coach who was ranting about the desire to remove the ability to file for no-fault divorce, and as I was watching the video, I was like, Yeah, everything you're complaining about, lady? That's a GOOD thing. It SHOULD be harder to get a divorce. You are literally tearing apart your family, why, because you don't think you're compatible anymore? WORK THROUGH your problems that you've encountered with your spouse, don't run away from them. (You can find the quoted post on X at my handle @TheJudgeRightly.)
Installing a new king is like a marriage (and yes, this is going to be a poor analogy, not everything will line up). The king is married to his job (in a good way), he lives and breathes being the ruler of the nation.
Having a system that removes the king from his position is like no-fault divorce. The nation, being the spouse of the king, files for divorce and says "we're just not compatible anymore," and while the individual might be punished for his wrongdoings, the "king" status goes away, and the nation goes to find another king.
The king is supposed to lead his nation, in sickness and in health, "Till death do us part." What good does it do if the nation isn't FIGHTING to love and support her king, even during the hard times? What good does it do if the expectation is that the king fights for his nation?
If the nation just runs away at the drop of a hat, that shows a lack of maturity. Children run away from their problems. Responsible adults face their problems head on, and even if the best outcome isn't achieved, then at the very least they fought for it!
Having a way for the king to avoid the consequences of his actions as king, even though he may be worthy of death, would foster the thought that, "hey, even if I tank this nation's economy, commit war crimes, and grind this nation to a halt, I don't have to deal with the consequences of that, because I'll just be removed from the throne. So what, I may lose my life, or at the very least, never be king again, but I can shirk the responsibility and let all of you, whom I hate, deal with the consequennes of my actions."
And even if the king ultimately does not repent, he will be held all the more resonsible by God on judgement day for his unrepentance.
The constitution as proposed makes it clear that God exists, and that evil men will face God on judgement day for being wicked, so the king would have no excuse to say, "well, I don't believe in God, thus my actions as king don't matter."
In other words, a far more severe and appropriate punishment for an evil king is to force him to deal with the consequences of his actions as king.
There is a big difference between being weak and being evil. A rogue king that has gone far enough off the reservation to trigger a process intended to remove him from the throne would not be merely weak but actively unjust and unacceptably tyrannical and destructive.
There are few other problems with your line of thinking.
First, a "weak" king is not the only source of a nation's "bad times". Regardless of how good of a king a nation has, there are still going to be good times and bad. There are times of war and times of piece, times of plenty and times of want, etc. With a good king the good time might be better and the bad times less bad but the fact remains that life ebbs and flows.
Also, "good times" aren't good for everyone and neither are "bad times". As such, even under a good king, some are going to have a rough time of it. Further, good times do not cause every man to be weak, (never mind wicked) nor do bad times cause every man to be strong. In every population there are those who buck the trend and in all cases, it would be possible - even easy - to find someone to take the throne should a wicked king be removed.
Well, I am not advocating that there should be a system in place where a king can be removed for any reason whatsoever or for no reason at all. On the contrary! I'm talking about having a system in place that allows for a the removal of a king that ignores the law, who murders people, who betrays the nation or in some other way flagrantly and egregiously disregards his duty at king.
In terms of the divorce analogy, it would be the husband who commits adultery or attempts to murder his wife, in which cases, divorce is not only allowed, it is wise!
Well, perhaps, but I'm not so much worried about punishing the king as I am concerned about ensuring just governance of the nation.
(I feel bad about how brief my response is! Please don't think I'm making light of your efforts!)
@Clete, I put the proposed constitution into ChatGPT to explore the structure of it, and see if I could address some of the issues people have with it, and I've now been surprised by what it suggested, as it seems like a REALLY good idea!
I'm not sure if you have access to the pdf forms of the Political Defence and Biblical Defence of America's Constitution documents, but if you do, then you'll know what I'm talking about here.... I told it I wanted to go through section by section to address potential issues, avoiding certain things, and when I got to where I wanted to be, I gave it the list of reasons for individual rule vs governance by committee. It suggested to me as part of its "refining the monarch's authority based on political reasoning" a "Written Legacy as a check on Tyranny," wherein it specified:
It then gave a "Why this works:" section:
I asked "Why number 3?"
Here is what it wrote:
I thought it was a BRILLIANT idea, and reinforces what Bob wrote, regarding an evil king knowing that history will hold him accountable.
I'm going to suggest that it increase the number of times such a record is made to monthly, with a yearly summary in addition, in case the king dies or is killed, that way there's not a potentially nearly-two-year-long gap between declarations.
I'm not sure if you have access to the pdf forms of the Political Defence and Biblical Defence of America's Constitution documents, but if you do, then you'll know what I'm talking about here.... I told it I wanted to go through section by section to address potential issues, avoiding certain things, and when I got to where I wanted to be, I gave it the list of reasons for individual rule vs governance by committee. It suggested to me as part of its "refining the monarch's authority based on political reasoning" a "Written Legacy as a check on Tyranny," wherein it specified:
| > Each King must author a yearly statement of governance, publicly declaring: - How he upheld God's law (which could easily be changed to "the nation's laws") in rulings. - How he enforced justice in the land. - His intentions and vision for the following year. > This publicly recorded document becomes part of America's Grand Archive |
It then gave a "Why this works:" section:
| > Forces personal accountability—his words will be judged by history. > Ensures transparency—subjects know what kind of ruler he is. > Does not create bureaucracy—only a simple record. |
I asked "Why number 3?"
Here is what it wrote:
| Why Require a Written Legacy? (Referring to point 3: Written Legacy as a Check on Tyranny) The idea of a yearly governance statement is meant to reinforce the King’s personal accountability before history and God, without introducing an institutional check that would undermine monarchical rule. Here’s the reasoning behind it: --- 1. It Aligns with Biblical Precedent Deuteronomy 17:18-20 commands the King of Israel to write a copy of the Law for himself, ensuring he remains faithful to God’s commandments. Kings and rulers were often expected to make their decrees known (e.g., Nebuchadnezzar’s proclamations in Daniel 4). > How This Applies Here: By requiring the King to record his governance, it reinforces his duty to rule righteously. This written statement does not limit his power but keeps him mindful of how future generations will judge his rule. --- 2. It Uses the Power of History as a Restraining Force One of the core arguments for monarchy is that a King, unlike a democratic committee, knows history will judge him personally. This is what prevents reckless decision-making, as even an evil King wants to be remembered as a great ruler. > How This Applies Here: A public written governance record serves as a permanent testimony to his rule. Future generations will compare his words with his actions, shaping his legacy. It creates moral pressure—knowing that his governance will be examined forever. --- 3. It Prevents the Need for Committees or Oversight Theocracy relies on God as the direct ruler—but since theonomic monarchy is a human government applying God’s law, it needs ways to ensure adherence without creating a council or parliament. The typical way democracies do this is by elections, accountability committees, and legislative oversight—all of which are rejected here. Instead of human institutions holding the King accountable, his own words and decisions hold him accountable. > How This Applies Here: There is no governing body overseeing the King, just his own historical record. His own decrees and statements will be read, preserved, and judged by future generations. If a King contradicts himself year after year, the weight of history will expose him. --- 4. It Ensures the Nation Remains Theonomic Without Bureaucratic Expansion Without legislatures, the King alone upholds God’s law. A written record of his governance ensures that future Kings can learn from past mistakes without requiring a legislative system. This also preserves national consistency, preventing moral drift. > How This Applies Here: The nation will have a long record of past rulings under different Kings. Future Kings can study these records to stay consistent in applying theonomy. This eliminates the need for an expanding bureaucracy of legal scholars to interpret rulings. --- 5. It Preserves Stability During Transitions of Power In hereditary monarchies, transitions can sometimes be unstable if the new King lacks wisdom. By studying past governance records, new rulers can see how their predecessors ruled, what mistakes they made, and how to avoid them. > How This Applies Here: A young King can look at his father’s records and continue righteous policies. Ensures that national policy remains rooted in biblical justice rather than being completely reset every generation. --- Why This Does Not Weaken Monarchy The King does not need to justify himself to anyone—he simply writes his governance record, and history will judge him. There is no oversight committee reviewing his words—it is between him, God, and history. The public and future generations will see his words, ensuring moral and historical pressure without needing a legislative body. --- Summary of Why Number 3 Matters
--- Would You Like to Keep, Modify, or Remove This Idea? If you feel that history itself is already a sufficient check on a King’s actions, we can remove this provision. However, if you see value in ensuring a clear historical record of rulings for future Kings, then we can refine or simplify it further. Would you prefer: 1. Keeping the yearly governance record as described. 2. Modifying it (perhaps requiring it only once per reign, rather than yearly). 3. Removing it altogether and relying purely on the judgment of history. |
I thought it was a BRILLIANT idea, and reinforces what Bob wrote, regarding an evil king knowing that history will hold him accountable.
I'm going to suggest that it increase the number of times such a record is made to monthly, with a yearly summary in addition, in case the king dies or is killed, that way there's not a potentially nearly-two-year-long gap between declarations.
I agree that such record keeping is a terrific idea. History is always valuable to record and to remember. That alone makes this a good idea.
Is the idea to require the king to make this record himself or could he delegate the doing of it to someone who's job it is to record all the official acts of the king and to prepare a periodic summary of them and how they relate to the king's upholding of God's law?
Point three states...
What would keep the king from lying? I'm not sure that Nero (just to name an obvious despot) cares much about "the weight of history".
Is the idea to require the king to make this record himself or could he delegate the doing of it to someone who's job it is to record all the official acts of the king and to prepare a periodic summary of them and how they relate to the king's upholding of God's law?
Point three states...
"3. It Prevents the Need for Committees or Oversight
Theocracy relies on God as the direct ruler—but since theonomic monarchy is a human government applying God’s law, it needs ways to ensure adherence without creating a council or parliament.
The typical way democracies do this is by elections, accountability committees, and legislative oversight—all of which are rejected here.
Instead of human institutions holding the King accountable, his own words and decisions hold him accountable.
> How This Applies Here:
There is no governing body overseeing the King, just his own historical record.
His own decrees and statements will be read, preserved, and judged by future generations.
If a King contradicts himself year after year, the weight of history will expose him."
What would keep the king from lying? I'm not sure that Nero (just to name an obvious despot) cares much about "the weight of history".
It could/should be delegated, but would have to be signed off by the king, forcing him to stand by whatever is written.
Could probably have two people do it ("two or three witnesses"), and the King sign off on both accounts, to deter falsehoods from being entered.
Of course, this could just as easily backfire, if one or both of the other two witnesses are co-opted to present a false record.
Here's the answer it gave me (along with what I have so far):
Bladerunner
Active member
Interesting...Who is the King of Israel you were speaking about in (Deuteronomy 17:18-20) . Israel only had one king at this time and this was Jesus Christ. And it happens He wrote a copy of the Law to Himself making sure He remained faithful to Himself.
Bladerunner
Active member
This process had already been done by the Lord Himself..a good argument for your position. NO?
For a secular nation such as the US? No, not really.
Bladerunner
Active member
The Lord tells us that there is nothing new under the sun..."The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." (Ecc 1:9). Thus the secular nation of the US is nothing new.
What's your point?
This thread is about the proposed constitution found at https://kgov.com/constitution.
Either get on topic or leave, please.
Bladerunner
Active member
I stated its purpose when I replied to you first post. I then tried to answer you next reply by trying to to prove what I had said. Yes, it takes us in a slight different direction, but what do you want me to do? Make no reply to anything you write?
the article at:https://kgov.com/constitution. is well written but GOD was already there. That is what I meant nothing else.
You know, you don't HAVE to reply to everything on this board, right?
Go read the original thread please.