Constitutional Monarchy

[Clete]

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.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The Point You Still Haven’t Answered

I am addressing the point specifically and directly.

Okay. You go on repeating that all you like.

Okay, as best as I can tell, the rest of your post is just making and remaking the same point over and over again.

I repeat it because the point still has not been answered. You keep saying “the law” is over the king, and I agree with that as a standard: the king is bound by the law and cannot make evil lawful. But the issue is not whether the law is over the king as a standard. The issue is whether some earthly process, administered by men, has jurisdiction to remove him from office. If men can lawfully judge and remove the king, how are they not above him in that proceeding?

The Legal Mechanism

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 king. That's the entire point of it being there.

No. My objection is not that this is bad because it is a law. My objection is that this law creates a mechanism by which men may remove the king, and that mechanism can be used for evil as well as for good. Yes, it may be used to remove a wicked king, but it may also be used by wicked men to remove a good king, or even merely a king who is inconvenient to them. That is the danger.

Law as Standard vs. Jurisdiction

And for the ten thousandth time, it does not create an authority over the king that does not already exist, that authority being the law itself.

No they do not, JR! It is the law that is above the king. The men who installed the king weren't above him, why would the men who unseated him be, so long as they are doing so in accordance with the law?

Once again, the only authority over the king is the law. My provision simply makes it so that the criminal code portion of the law applies to the king in addition to merely the moral aspects of it.

You keep repeating this. The only institution is the law itself.

Yes. The law should have power over the king since the king's power is derived from that very law.

The king would be subject to the law, the same as anyone else is and by the same means.

“Subject to the law” means what, exactly, Clete? If you mean the king’s lawful authority is defined and limited by the law, then I agree. In the proposed Constitution, the only authorities over the king are God and the law. But if you mean other men can bring suit against him, judge him, and remove him from office, then that is my point. That is not merely the law being over the king as a standard. That is an earthly process, administered by men, exercising jurisdiction over the king.

The law itself does not act. It does not bring charges, hear evidence, issue judgment, remove kings, or enforce consequences. Men do those things. Installing a king and unseating a king are not the same act. Installing a king fills the office; unseating a king judges whether a sitting king may continue to rule. So the question is not whether those men are above the law, but whether they have authority over the king under the law. If they can lawfully tell a reigning king, “You no longer rule,” then at that decisive point they are above him.

Rule of Law Still Requires Men

Men do those thing according to the law, if they are doing so correctly. This is what is meant by the "rule of law".

Without a legal means by which the king can be removed from power, it becomes something other than the rule of law. It is the rule of a man.

The presumption is that legal action against the king is just that, legal.

Not just who, but in what context. Specifically, an orderly legal process.

The problem is the “if they are doing so correctly” part. No amount of laws or procedures can ensure that men will always interpret and enforce the law honestly. The law may tell men what they ought to do, but it cannot make them love justice, fear God, or act righteously. So appealing to “the rule of law” does not solve the problem. The rule of law still has to be administered by men. If those men are wicked, they may use the law as cover for what is actually lawless.

Likewise, calling the process “legal” and “orderly” does not answer the question of authority. It only describes the form in which that authority is exercised. “Legal” does not automatically mean righteous, and you cannot simply presume the process is legal when its legality is exactly what the king would dispute. If the king says the action is unlawful sedition, and the judge says it is lawful prosecution, who has the final earthly word? And since all politics is theological, calling a judge unpaid, temporary, non-professional, or “non-political” does not make him neutral.

No Office? The Process Is Still the Issue

I am proposing no such "office". I've said this over and over again. There would be no political body that administers anything related to removing the king.

...non-political,...

There is no one that controls it, JR. There is no office or position or political body or anything else like that. There would be people who have legal standing to bring suit against the king. These would be the same people who already have standing to bring suit against regular criminals, whoever that happens to be. The system doesn't have prosecutors or defense lawyers and there would be no council or board or supreme court or any other such political body.

The failure of your "proof" is that there is no "certain men" in the sense you are discussing it. The "certain men" is anyone who has legal standing to charge the king with a crime, which would be the self same people who charge anyone else.

It does not matter whether you call it an office, council, board, tribunal, political body, or anything else. The process itself is the issue. If someone can bring suit against the king, and a judge can hear the case, judge the evidence, declare guilt, and impose removal, then the king has been placed under an earthly process administered by men. Saying “anyone with standing” can bring the charge only explains who may start the process; it does not answer who has authority to finish it. The person bringing the charge may not be above the king merely by filing it, but the process that can bind the king by judgment and remove him from office is above him in that proceeding. So the structural issue remains: your mechanism places the sitting king under an earthly judgment capable of removing him from the throne. And supra on “non-political.”

Moral vs. Legal Code

They condemn it morally but not legally. The moral code is not what I am proposing to alter, it is the legal code.

Right, and that is exactly the problem. The question is not whether more words can be added to the legal code, but what those words authorize men to do. If you alter the legal code to create a process by which men can bring suit against the king, judge him, and remove him, then those words authorize men to exercise jurisdiction over the king. If men obey those words, then your addition places a legal process over the throne. If they do not, then adding more words will not make them obey.

No Throne Needed

...who has no means to be elevated to the throne,...

Irrelevant. Why shoot for being king when you can just be the one that has the power to remove him, or to control the process? Much simpler to get the one who holds all the power to do your bidding under threat of removal than to hold that power yourself.

Standing and Judicial Influence

Someone with legal standing would have to bring suit against the king

and then a . . . non-professional, non-paid, judge, . . . would have to rule on the case the same as he would any other case.

The failure of your "proof" is that there is no "certain men" in the sense you are discussing it. The "certain men" is anyone who has legal standing to charge the king with a crime, which would be the self same people who charge anyone else.

That only explains who may start the process. It does not answer who has authority to finish it. If someone can bring suit against the king, and a judge can hear the case, judge the evidence, declare guilt, and impose removal, then the king has been placed under an earthly process administered by men. And that process is not safe merely because the judge is unpaid, temporary, or non-professional.

Here are ten ways a judge could be influenced in such a case:

1. Bribery - money, gifts, favors, debts paid, business help.
2. Threats against family - kidnapping, harm, intimidation, harassment.
3. Blackmail - past sins, private scandals, embarrassing information.
4. “Accidental death” - murder disguised as accident, suicide, illness, etc.
5. Social pressure - being ostracized by neighbors, church, trade partners, friends.
6. Religious pressure - pastors, elders, or respected teachers framing the desired ruling as “God’s will.”
7. Economic pressure - loss of customers, employment, land access, contracts, credit, suppliers.
8. Reputation destruction - public accusations, slander, rumors, character assassination.
9. Fear of instability - ruling based on “what will avoid civil war” rather than what justice requires.
10. Ideological capture - the judge sincerely believes the king is dangerous and bends the law to get the “right” outcome.

The list could go on, but the point is simple: calling the judge unpaid, temporary, or non-professional does not make him incorruptible. So no, “anyone with standing” does not solve the problem. It only explains who can trigger the mechanism. The structural issue remains that the mechanism places the sitting king under an earthly judgment capable of removing him from the throne.

No Legal Consequence ≠ Lawful Permission

But he can do so without legal consequence.

Which the current, unaltered system guarantees because it permits the king to retain power even when ignoring the law that grants him that power.

Precisely. On such a throne would sit a king who can suffer no legal consequences to any action it pops into his mind to commit. That is the definition of an autocracy and it would turn into exactly that, probably within a generation or two of the nation's founding.

Bottom line is that you aren't ever going to convince me that the creation of a system where the king can do anything he wants without legal consequence would result in anything other than tyranny. I'd rather have the system we have right now!

No, that is not the definition of autocracy, and it is not my position. You are treating the absence of a superior domestic court as though it means the king has unlimited lawful authority. It does not. A king whose authority is defined and limited by written law is not authorized to do whatever pops into his mind merely because no higher earthly process exists to prosecute him. If he murders, steals, lies, or violates the Constitution, he is acting outside the authority by which he holds office. His actions are unlawful, even if no superior domestic court can punish him. So yes, he may be without that specific legal consequence, but he is not without consequence, period.

The king retaining power is what keeps the structure monarchical. That is dangerous if the king is wicked, but danger is not the same thing as structural collapse. A monarchy can survive bad kings; historically, many have. What it cannot survive as monarchy in the final-authority sense is the establishment of a superior domestic power whose recognized function is to determine whether the king may continue to reign. Your proposal treats the first serious test of monarchy as the moment monarchy must give way to another authority. Every civil system has some final earthly point beyond which there is no higher domestic appeal. Placing that point in the king is monarchy. Placing it in the men who can remove the king is not.

Legal Cover for Corruption

That can happen whether my provision is in place or not.

There are already provision in the law to deal with sedition, which is what you're talking about here.

Neither can yours.

I'm fine with it so long as that actor is acting justly (i.e. in accordance with the law).

Yes, corruption can happen either way. That is not in dispute. The question is whether your provision gives corruption a lawful-looking path to the throne. Without it, men who wish to remove the king unlawfully must act outside the constitutional structure. With it, those same ambitions can be pursued through an official legal process: bring suit, invoke procedure, claim standing, appeal to the law, and portray themselves as defenders of the Constitution while attempting to unseat the king. Sedition laws do not solve that problem if the sedition is being carried out through the removal process itself.

And “so long as” the actor is acting justly is doing all the work. Who determines whether he is acting justly when the king disputes it? If the actor decides for himself, he is his own judge. If another judge decides, that judge becomes the higher authority at that point. If the king decides, the mechanism cannot restrain him. So yes, neither system can guarantee righteous men. The difference is that Bob’s system does not try to solve the problem of one sinful man by creating another layer of sinful men with lawful authority over him. Your system relocates final authority to the men empowered to remove him, and then assumes they will use that power righteously. The problem is not solved. It is merely relocated.

Semantics Matter

It absolutely does!

It does not do so.

You absolutely are arguing that there is no law over the king. It is impossible for me to believe that you do not see that. The distinction you are making is semantic at best.

No, I am not arguing that there is no law over the king. When I say the Constitution does not “allow” tyranny, I mean it does not authorize it, legitimize it, or make it lawful. A tyrant may violate the Constitution and escape prosecution by a superior domestic court, but that does not mean the Constitution permits his actions. It means he is acting unlawfully under the very law by which he was appointed.

The issue is what “law over the king” means in practice. If it means the king’s lawful authority is defined and limited by the law, I agree. If it means men may lawfully charge him, judge him, and remove him from office, then that is the point under dispute. A judgment made “according to law” is still a judgment administered by men. Judges who act according to law still exercise authority over the defendants before them, so if the king can be made a defendant in a proceeding that can remove him from the throne, then he is under that proceeding.

And sorry, but you don't get to come after me for "allow" and then dismiss my points as "semantics." Semantics is the study of meaning; in ordinary use, it refers to what words, phrases, and statements actually mean. So yes, this is semantic, because the meaning of words is exactly what is at issue. What does “law over the king” mean? What does “subject to the law” mean? What does “authority over the king” mean? What does “allow” mean? Words mean things. Words convey ideas. Ideas have consequences. If the whole dispute turns on what these phrases mean in practice, then semantics is not a dodge. It is the argument.

Israel Does Not Help Your Case

The only thing that prevented it in Israel was God Himself, which is a safeguard we would not enjoy as a gentile nation.

Exactly, but that cuts against your point. God was Israel’s safeguard, but God did not always immediately remove wicked kings. Israel had wicked kings who remained on the throne, and their wickedness did not automatically collapse the kingdom into another form of government.

And when God did remove kings, He did not do so through anything resembling your proposed legal mechanism. He did not create a domestic judicial process over the throne by which men could prosecute and depose the king. He judged providentially, prophetically, militarily, or through succession, but not by establishing a standing earthly process above the king. So Israel only proves that Israel had a unique covenantal safeguard we do not have. It does not prove that a gentile nation needs the kind of legal removal mechanism you are proposing.

-

I hope that this helps to clarify things.

And I saw your follow-up post. I'll get to that next.

 

[Clete]

The Point You Still Haven’t Answered







I repeat it because the point still has not been answered. You keep saying “the law” is over the king, and I agree with that as a standard: the king is bound by the law and cannot make evil lawful. But the issue is not whether the law is over the king as a standard. The issue is whether some earthly process, administered by men, has jurisdiction to remove him from office. If men can lawfully judge and remove the king, how are they not above him in that proceeding?

The Legal Mechanism



No. My objection is not that this is bad because it is a law. My objection is that this law creates a mechanism by which men may remove the king, and that mechanism can be used for evil as well as for good. Yes, it may be used to remove a wicked king, but it may also be used by wicked men to remove a good king, or even merely a king who is inconvenient to them. That is the danger.

Law as Standard vs. Jurisdiction













“Subject to the law” means what, exactly, Clete? If you mean the king’s lawful authority is defined and limited by the law, then I agree. In the proposed Constitution, the only authorities over the king are God and the law. But if you mean other men can bring suit against him, judge him, and remove him from office, then that is my point. That is not merely the law being over the king as a standard. That is an earthly process, administered by men, exercising jurisdiction over the king.

The law itself does not act. It does not bring charges, hear evidence, issue judgment, remove kings, or enforce consequences. Men do those things. Installing a king and unseating a king are not the same act. Installing a king fills the office; unseating a king judges whether a sitting king may continue to rule. So the question is not whether those men are above the law, but whether they have authority over the king under the law. If they can lawfully tell a reigning king, “You no longer rule,” then at that decisive point they are above him.

Rule of Law Still Requires Men









The problem is the “if they are doing so correctly” part. No amount of laws or procedures can ensure that men will always interpret and enforce the law honestly. The law may tell men what they ought to do, but it cannot make them love justice, fear God, or act righteously. So appealing to “the rule of law” does not solve the problem. The rule of law still has to be administered by men. If those men are wicked, they may use the law as cover for what is actually lawless.

Likewise, calling the process “legal” and “orderly” does not answer the question of authority. It only describes the form in which that authority is exercised. “Legal” does not automatically mean righteous, and you cannot simply presume the process is legal when its legality is exactly what the king would dispute. If the king says the action is unlawful sedition, and the judge says it is lawful prosecution, who has the final earthly word? And since all politics is theological, calling a judge unpaid, temporary, non-professional, or “non-political” does not make him neutral.

No Office? The Process Is Still the Issue









It does not matter whether you call it an office, council, board, tribunal, political body, or anything else. The process itself is the issue. If someone can bring suit against the king, and a judge can hear the case, judge the evidence, declare guilt, and impose removal, then the king has been placed under an earthly process administered by men. Saying “anyone with standing” can bring the charge only explains who may start the process; it does not answer who has authority to finish it. The person bringing the charge may not be above the king merely by filing it, but the process that can bind the king by judgment and remove him from office is above him in that proceeding. So the structural issue remains: your mechanism places the sitting king under an earthly judgment capable of removing him from the throne. And supra on “non-political.”

Moral vs. Legal Code



Right, and that is exactly the problem. The question is not whether more words can be added to the legal code, but what those words authorize men to do. If you alter the legal code to create a process by which men can bring suit against the king, judge him, and remove him, then those words authorize men to exercise jurisdiction over the king. If men obey those words, then your addition places a legal process over the throne. If they do not, then adding more words will not make them obey.

No Throne Needed



Irrelevant. Why shoot for being king when you can just be the one that has the power to remove him, or to control the process? Much simpler to get the one who holds all the power to do your bidding under threat of removal than to hold that power yourself.

Standing and Judicial Influence







That only explains who may start the process. It does not answer who has authority to finish it. If someone can bring suit against the king, and a judge can hear the case, judge the evidence, declare guilt, and impose removal, then the king has been placed under an earthly process administered by men. And that process is not safe merely because the judge is unpaid, temporary, or non-professional.

Here are ten ways a judge could be influenced in such a case:

1. Bribery - money, gifts, favors, debts paid, business help.
2. Threats against family - kidnapping, harm, intimidation, harassment.
3. Blackmail - past sins, private scandals, embarrassing information.
4. “Accidental death” - murder disguised as accident, suicide, illness, etc.
5. Social pressure - being ostracized by neighbors, church, trade partners, friends.
6. Religious pressure - pastors, elders, or respected teachers framing the desired ruling as “God’s will.”
7. Economic pressure - loss of customers, employment, land access, contracts, credit, suppliers.
8. Reputation destruction - public accusations, slander, rumors, character assassination.
9. Fear of instability - ruling based on “what will avoid civil war” rather than what justice requires.
10. Ideological capture - the judge sincerely believes the king is dangerous and bends the law to get the “right” outcome.

The list could go on, but the point is simple: calling the judge unpaid, temporary, or non-professional does not make him incorruptible. So no, “anyone with standing” does not solve the problem. It only explains who can trigger the mechanism. The structural issue remains that the mechanism places the sitting king under an earthly judgment capable of removing him from the throne.

No Legal Consequence ≠ Lawful Permission









No, that is not the definition of autocracy, and it is not my position. You are treating the absence of a superior domestic court as though it means the king has unlimited lawful authority. It does not. A king whose authority is defined and limited by written law is not authorized to do whatever pops into his mind merely because no higher earthly process exists to prosecute him. If he murders, steals, lies, or violates the Constitution, he is acting outside the authority by which he holds office. His actions are unlawful, even if no superior domestic court can punish him. So yes, he may be without that specific legal consequence, but he is not without consequence, period.

The king retaining power is what keeps the structure monarchical. That is dangerous if the king is wicked, but danger is not the same thing as structural collapse. A monarchy can survive bad kings; historically, many have. What it cannot survive as monarchy in the final-authority sense is the establishment of a superior domestic power whose recognized function is to determine whether the king may continue to reign. Your proposal treats the first serious test of monarchy as the moment monarchy must give way to another authority. Every civil system has some final earthly point beyond which there is no higher domestic appeal. Placing that point in the king is monarchy. Placing it in the men who can remove the king is not.

Legal Cover for Corruption









Yes, corruption can happen either way. That is not in dispute. The question is whether your provision gives corruption a lawful-looking path to the throne. Without it, men who wish to remove the king unlawfully must act outside the constitutional structure. With it, those same ambitions can be pursued through an official legal process: bring suit, invoke procedure, claim standing, appeal to the law, and portray themselves as defenders of the Constitution while attempting to unseat the king. Sedition laws do not solve that problem if the sedition is being carried out through the removal process itself.

And “so long as” the actor is acting justly is doing all the work. Who determines whether he is acting justly when the king disputes it? If the actor decides for himself, he is his own judge. If another judge decides, that judge becomes the higher authority at that point. If the king decides, the mechanism cannot restrain him. So yes, neither system can guarantee righteous men. The difference is that Bob’s system does not try to solve the problem of one sinful man by creating another layer of sinful men with lawful authority over him. Your system relocates final authority to the men empowered to remove him, and then assumes they will use that power righteously. The problem is not solved. It is merely relocated.

Semantics Matter







No, I am not arguing that there is no law over the king. When I say the Constitution does not “allow” tyranny, I mean it does not authorize it, legitimize it, or make it lawful. A tyrant may violate the Constitution and escape prosecution by a superior domestic court, but that does not mean the Constitution permits his actions. It means he is acting unlawfully under the very law by which he was appointed.

The issue is what “law over the king” means in practice. If it means the king’s lawful authority is defined and limited by the law, I agree. If it means men may lawfully charge him, judge him, and remove him from office, then that is the point under dispute. A judgment made “according to law” is still a judgment administered by men. Judges who act according to law still exercise authority over the defendants before them, so if the king can be made a defendant in a proceeding that can remove him from the throne, then he is under that proceeding.

And sorry, but you don't get to come after me for "allow" and then dismiss my points as "semantics." Semantics is the study of meaning; in ordinary use, it refers to what words, phrases, and statements actually mean. So yes, this is semantic, because the meaning of words is exactly what is at issue. What does “law over the king” mean? What does “subject to the law” mean? What does “authority over the king” mean? What does “allow” mean? Words mean things. Words convey ideas. Ideas have consequences. If the whole dispute turns on what these phrases mean in practice, then semantics is not a dodge. It is the argument.

Israel Does Not Help Your Case



Exactly, but that cuts against your point. God was Israel’s safeguard, but God did not always immediately remove wicked kings. Israel had wicked kings who remained on the throne, and their wickedness did not automatically collapse the kingdom into another form of government.

And when God did remove kings, He did not do so through anything resembling your proposed legal mechanism. He did not create a domestic judicial process over the throne by which men could prosecute and depose the king. He judged providentially, prophetically, militarily, or through succession, but not by establishing a standing earthly process above the king. So Israel only proves that Israel had a unique covenantal safeguard we do not have. It does not prove that a gentile nation needs the kind of legal removal mechanism you are proposing.

-

I hope that this helps to clarify things.

And I saw your follow-up post. I'll get to that next.

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 according to personal will, arbitrary preference, or raw power.

The proposed constitution, as written, throws the rule of law into the trash heap, in so far as the king is concerned.

If the rule of law requires men to interpret and enforce laws, then why does a judge applying the law to a king transform the system into the rule of judges, when the same judge applying the law to a murderer does not transform the system into the rule of judges?

Everyone understands that men interpret laws, apply laws, enforce laws, adjudicate disputes, etc under a system governed by the rule of law. The question is not whether men are involved, but whether those men are exercising their own will or administering a legal standard that is itself binding upon them.

This is why judges convicting a murderer is considered an example of the rule of law rather than the rule of judges. The judge is not saying, "I personally dislike this man." The judge is saying, "The law requires this result."

Likewise, if a constitutional mechanism existed for removing a king who violated the constitution, the mere fact that judges participate in that process would not automatically mean the judges have become sovereigns. It would mean they are administering a legal standard. Presuming of course that they are acting lawfully.

You ask, who decides whether the judges are acting lawfully? To which I respond, who decides whether the King has violated the Constitution?

It's the same question, the difference is our answers.

Your answer is effectively, "Nobody." Or at least nobody with authority to do anything about it.

Mine, on the other hand is, "The King acts as the highest judge in ordinary matters, but in the extraordinary case of constitutional violations by the King himself, a special process exists."

You believe that this special process breaks the system, I say it fixes a fundamental flaw in the system as proposed.

Impasse