But he's effectively in command though, right?
Yes, and?
So, if this king, who is drawn by random holds no truck with the "law" then what's to be done?
Your question has been answered already.
https://kgov.com/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. |
That's it. Nothing more.
| 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. |
That he'll be held accountable for not upholding it in the afterlife?
Yes.
Assuming a foreign power doesn't invade.
That's not going to mean much to someone who doesn't believe the same as yourself is it?
It didn't mean much to the wicked kings of Israel either, now, did it?
And yet, God didn't remove them or implement a way to remove them.
He let them deal with the consequences of their actions.
Am I correct in recalling that any such king will be informed that there's a God
Yes.
and that he will be told such before agreeing to hold the position from one of your posts?
Whether he agrees with the fact that God exists or doesn't agree is irrelevant to his being appointed as king.
He can choose to accept or reject God, and he can choose to accept or reject the throne.
If he accepts the throne, he will be given a copy of the constitution, criminal code, and code of use, and while he is under obligation to follow the law throughout his reign, there is no one of high enough authority to compel him to do so, as he dwells above the jurisdiction of any other court in the land.
If so, what's that going to mean in itself to anyone, really?
To the average Joe, that will give him pause every time he thinks of violating the law.
Considering that the selection process is focused on the average Joe, and not focused on people who stand out, that lessens the chance (not completely, but some) that King Joe will violate the law.
Not very much realistically. An atheist could jump at the chance to hold such power and undermine the system and there's no power to stop him.
This is a logical extreme that won't happen often, but which you are fallaciously using just to call my position into question.
Do you have something that shows my position to be wrong? Or are you just griping?
Because you're forgetting that foreign powers are a thing, Artie.
If a king makes bad decisions, those decisions inherently weaken his nation. The threat of a foreign power taking over is also a deterrent against breaking the law, and a much stronger one, and more real and present one, so to speak, than the threat of future judgment by the God of all creation.
Just threats down the line which he won't give any real credence to anyway.
I think you don't give enough credit to the average Joe.
Your position is fundamentally (and ironically) flawed.
Saying it doesn't make it so, Artie.
