Most of this begs the question.
You state that any mechanism for removing an unjust king would be rebellion.
It would be rebellion against the natural flow of authority.
The king is over the whole nation, but not the law. The people, be it one person or a committee or the nation as a whole, do not have the authority over the king to remove him from leadership, nor is there any way to have a law in place that would allow them to remove him, because that would undermine his authority.
Well, that's only true if it were not part of the legal framework of the nation's constitution (i.e. part of the governmental system - i.e. the authority structure of the nation).
It's not the authority structure of the nation that I'm talking about, though. It's the natural structure of authority itself that flows downhill from God, through the law, to the leader of a nation, to his subjects, and from there, it's the leader of the household, which should be (but often isn't) the father, to the wife, to the children, to any pets.
That's the natural flow of authority that Bob talks about.
Any system that compromises that flow is inherently unnatural, if not unjust.
In other words, your argument presupposes that your side of the debate is correct. It presupposes that the only right form of government permitted by God is a monarchy
The only thing my argument presupposes is that the natural flow of authority being downhill comes from God, and that THAT should not be violated, and also that God likes it when individuals rule, and not multiple people.
In other words, any government, so long as it keeps the natural flow of authority flowing downhill, and not try to compromise that flow, will, as a general rule of thumb, work better and be more successful than one that inherently does.
And as far as I'm aware, and I've asked you to see if you can think of any but, the only forms of government that do that naturally are monarchies and patriarchies, and perhaps dictatorships (would emperors be considered monarchs?) but other than that, I can't think of any others.
with a monarch who is effectively above the law.
Actually, and I'm sure you've heard Bob say this before, but it was God through Moses who first wrote that the king is not above the law, but that he should keep a copy of it with him always, to guide him.
My position is the same. The king is not above the law. Being above every court in the land doesn't make him above the law, it just makes him above any human court, excepting an external government's intervention.
As above, from the
proposed constitution:
| Any amendment or command issued by the King in defiance of this Constitution including one that increases taxes, gives all subjects the responsibility to engage in non-violent civil disobedience, including by withholding taxes, against such offense [B P]. However the King, as the ultimate national judge, likely will prevail in his own court against innocents, his decisions final on Earth even if unjust [B P], unless of course overturned by a foreign power. The King, though required to obey the laws herein, dwells above the jurisdiction of any other court in the land [P]. If the Monarch violates this Constitution through wrongful amendments or otherwise, while no American court has standing to prosecute him, he awaits the Judgment of God |
In other words, the law should deter him from changing the law, for one because it means every citizen in the nation would rebel against him, and two because any sane person would love to be exempt from taxes for up to two years by engraving the law and criminal code and placing it in their yard, which means that they are more likely to follow the law, and three because a single point of authority often rightly motivates.
On that third point, as an example, even though Pontius Pilate is probably the most wicked man in history for sentencing an innocent man to death, he still said Jesus was innocent. It was the "jury," the committee, that demanded he be put to death.
I reject that premise and so reject your argument.
Again, my premise isn't that it would be unlawful, because then all it would take would be to incorporate it into the law, but that it would be WRONG to have a system that undermined the natural flow of authority.
I hate to say it, Clete, but you're almost making the same argument a legalist makes when they defend the killing of innocent children or when they defend homosexuality. They're both legal, both accepted, but the actions themselves are still wrong.
In the same way, incorporating a system into the law to allow for the king to be removed is still wrong, even though it may be legal, because such a process inherently undermines his authority. It usurps his authority.
In other words, it makes the government circular, which, like the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, has no foundation.
If governmental authority is delegated by God, which is seems clear that it is per Jesus' words to Pilate (John 19:11) then where is there a prohibition against having an authority structure in place that permits for the lawful removal of an unjust king? There is no such prohibition.
It's in Colossians 1:16.
It's particularly in Romans 13:1-7.
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. - Romans 13:1-7
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans13:1-7&version=NKJV
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities."
That includes those within the government.
"whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God"
If you have a system that usurps the authority of the ruler, you're effectively disobeying God.
First of all this is an unsupported presupposition.
Except it's not unsupported.
Maybe
Bob Enyart can explain this one a bit.
Even if it were true, which I doubt, so what?
It means that the only alternative is to leave the judgment of the king, rightfully, to God, who is the standard on which the law rests, and the law is above the king.
You're advocating a system that has a king who would effectively be above the law.
See above.
Another unsupported presupposition
I very much doubt that this is true because you propose to pick someone to be king by random lottery which is going to pick someone right out of the middle of the bell curve (i.e. an average person). If 90% of the righteousness is found in best 10% of the population and 90% of the crime is committed by the worst 10% of the population then why would you want to grab someone out of the middle 80% rather than the best 10%?
I think you missed the point there.
The point is that a singular ruler has the possibility of being a good ruler, even though the majority of the rulers overall will be wicked, whereas a group of people ruling by committee is wicked and guaranteed to become more and more wicked over time, and thus such a government will decay orders of magnitude quicker than will a government where only one man rules.
Is there no one who can think things through clearly enough to figure out a way to, at the very least, increase the odds of the selection coming from that top 10%?
I don't think there is anyone who could claim to be wise enough to be able to devise such a system, because such an effort is, at best, foolish.
Is the whole world so lost in confusion and foolishness that we can't discern between someone of good character vs. the average Joe Smuck who may or may not even know right from wrong?
Only God is wise enough, and even He can't see the future.
Again, I point to what happened with King Saul, and I also point to King Solomon.
Who said anything about an impeachment committee?
I was using it as an example, but if you have a better suggestion, by all means, I want to hear it.
Not all people gathered together count as a committee, by the way. Committees almost always make decisions based on a simple majority vote that is based on each member's personal opinion. No one would agree that such a system would make for a viable way of removing a king from power. It would have to be some sort of legal proceeding where there was clear abuse of power as defined by the law, not some political party or popular opinion or the like.
And then the King, who is the highest judge in the land, would simply dismiss the case against himself.
If he's a good king, then why should his advisors not help guide him?
And if he's a bad king, then why would he listen to such proceedings anyways?
That's why his fate (to use a pagan term) rests in God's hands, so to speak, and not in a legal proceeding that wouldn't work anyways.
Once again, this is an unsupported presupposition.
Even if I granted it's validity, the response would be, "Okay fine. Don't give it to the people." (I assume that "giving it to the people" is a way of saying, "put it to a popular vote".)
"The people" means whatever legal proceeding anyone could ever think up, popular vote, court hearing, you name it.
Or what, do you think some computer program should oversee such a trial? It doesn't even know the difference between right and wrong, how is it going to determine if the king is either? I know that sounds silly, but I can't think of any alternatives that don't involve "people."
Well, not only does this sentiment apply equally well to a constitutional monarchy as it does any other form of government.
Here's the difference though: The proposed government doesn't try to prevent tyranny. It acknowledges it as a possibility, but notes that such a ruler is accountable to THE Ultimate Authority, God Himself.
All the other governments that have been proposed ever throughout the course of history (aside from God setting up Israel) have all tried in some way or another to prevent tyranny. Not one of them has ever succeeded. It's a utopia. It doesn't exist, nor can it, not until Christ Himself is ruling.
The form of government that has come the closest to preventing tyranny is the one we live under right now.
You know that isn't true, Clete. Our government is probably one of the MOST tyrannical governments. We have probably one of the most extensive law systems in the world which is just a system, not a justice system (kgov.com/just-a-system, we have some of the highest tax rates in the world (
https://kgov.com/taxes), the government has its fingers in just about everything we do in our daily lives, and it lets criminal perverts run rampant through the streets of our biggest cities, all while letting murderers continue to murder innocent children behind closed doors, and they even make money off of it.
If that's not tyrannical, I don't know what is.
Of course, whether you agree with that or not depends on how you define the word "tyranny"
I'm trying to find it, but it's in either first or second Samuel that God defines a tyrannical government as one that takes more than 10% of one's goods as tax.
Here in the US, the government takes around 40-50%.
but my point is merely that this point does not advance the case in favor of an above the law monarch.
I'm gonna use your phrase here, Clete.
I reject that premise and so reject your argument, the premise being that America has done a really good job of preventing tyranny.
That point DOES, at the very least, not favor a system by which to prevent tyranny, but certainly does not go against a system that does not try to prevent tyranny. (Sorry for all the double negatives, it's the only way I know how to say what I wanted to say.)
Indeed, the whole idea of an above the the monarch seems synonymous with tyranny to me.
Which again, isn't my position.
The king would not be above the law, only above every court in the land, barring an external government's invasion, takeover, and subsequent intervention in his actions.
This is the argument I referred to in my last post that I just do not buy. I get the point it's making but it just isn't correct from a practical perspective.
How so?
This is the equivalent of saying that the United States Congress is the real Chief Executive because they are able to impeach the President. That just isn't true at all.
Well, no, it means that the type of government we have in the US is a circular government, which it is, and has, therefore, no foundation.
Another unsupported presupposition.
Why must there be an ultimate ruler somewhere?
Is not God the ultimate ruler over all?
Did God delegate authority to the rulers to govern?
It is wrong to usurp the authority of a government, because doing so violates God's will for governments to govern.
Where is it written the there must be someone somewhere who sits above the law?
Again:
I reject that premise and so reject your argument.
The monarch is not above the law.
Why not? (i.e. yet another unsupported presupposition.)
Simply because such a system is not possible.
In other words, the king is above the law.
No, he's not.
Sure, the tyrannical king will answer to God on judgment day but so will everyone else, including all the people the tyrannical king murdered in response to their civil disobedience.
In other words, this does not advance the argument in favor of a monarch who sits above the law.
I think I answered this above... But I want to add a verse that might bring this into perspective:
[JESUS]But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few.
For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.[/JESUS] - Luke 12:48
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke12:48&version=NKJV
In other words, the punishment will be far greater for a ruler who disobeyed the law, than for one of his subjects who disobeyed the law, because the ruler is responsible and accountable for those he rules over.
My problem with this proposed system might be summed up by the following question....
If the king does not have the authority to make new laws, by what authority is he permitted to break the very laws that put him into power?
He's not permitted to do so. Yet he may do so anyways, simply because he has a will. He may choose to follow the law, or he may choose to not follow it.
He's not a robot, he's human. He's under the law like everyone else, yet he will be held to a much higher standard than others simply because he is over an entire nation.
Or put another way, how does it make sense to have a constitutional monarchy where the monarch can ignore the constitution?
Clete
Let me respond by asking you this question, and I'm pretty sure you know the answer, and so will know where I'm going with this hopefully:
Is it possible to prevent all crime? Or is man clever enough to work around any system put in place to prevent him from committing the crime he wants to commit?
-
Let me just say, this is probably the most fun I've had on TOL in a while. I'm really enjoying this! I just wish I had more time to reply! I've been recovering from being sick since about Wednesday last week, so I wasn't able to reply over the weekend like I wanted to, but I have some free time right now that has given me the opportunity to reply. To God be the glory!
