No, not by definition.
You are conflating two different ideas because they may produce a similar practical outcome.
“No lower domestic authority has jurisdiction to punish or remove the king” is not the same thing as “the king is legally permitted to ignore the law.”
A king who cannot be removed by a lower domestic court may, in practice, get away with violating the law for a time. But that does not mean he is legally permitted to violate the law. It means no lesser domestic authority has jurisdiction to try and depose him.
You are treating “not punishable by a lower domestic office” as synonymous with “lawful.” That is the equivocation.
No, you are redefining constitutional monarchy around your preferred enforcement mechanism.
A constitutional monarchy is not defined by whether some domestic body can remove the king. It is defined by whether the king’s office is constituted and limited by a known legal order.
In Bob’s proposal, the king’s office, duties, jurisdiction, succession, taxation, criminal code, judicial structure, military authority, and limits are all constitutionally defined. That is objectively a constitutional monarchy.
What it lacks is the particular feature you want: a superior domestic authority with removal jurisdiction over the king. But that is precisely the disputed point. You cannot define constitutional monarchy as “a monarchy with my preferred removal mechanism” and then declare Bob’s proposal non-constitutional for lacking it.
Again, no. Lack of a superior domestic court does not mean “legally permitted.” It means there is no higher domestic civil office with jurisdiction to remove him.
Those are not the same thing, even if they may produce a similar practical outcome in some cases.
A command can be unlawful even if there is no earthly tribunal competent to punish the man who gives it. A king can violate his office, sin against God, break the constitution, forfeit any claim to obedience for wicked commands, invite rebuke, resistance, non-cooperation, and divine judgment without thereby creating jurisdiction in lesser offices to depose him.
You keep turning “no lower office may remove him” into “he is legally allowed to do whatever he wants.” That does not follow.
This is a major shift in your argument.
You began by arguing that Bob’s proposed system would produce tyranny because the king could not be removed by a domestic authority. But now you are saying that existing monarchs are tyrants even when their nations function peacefully, even when the monarch is benevolent, and even when the monarchy has not produced the nightmare scenario you keep warning about.
If “tyrant” simply means “monarch,” then of course every monarchy is tyrannical, but only because you have defined the conclusion into the word. If tyranny means wicked, oppressive, unjust rule, then no, a functioning monarchy with a non-oppressive king is not tyranny merely because the king is not removable by your preferred domestic mechanism.
Nor is Bob’s proposal “just a straight up monarch placed on the throne with nothing but political pressure and his own conscience.” That ignores one of the most important parts of the whole argument: the shared moral framework of the nation. Without that, neither your system nor mine will work long term. A righteous procedure cannot save an unrighteous people.
If the shared moral framework says the king is under God’s law but no domestic office has jurisdiction over him, then people will act accordingly. Officers will refuse wicked commands. Judges will stay within their jurisdiction. Treasurers will refuse unlawful disbursements. Subjects will resist, rebuke, expose, and obey God rather than man.
But if the shared moral framework says there is a lawful mechanism to remove the king, then ambitious men will act accordingly too. They will organize around that mechanism, capture it if they can, and weaponize it under color of law. That is why the moral framework matters at least as much as the paper procedure.
And if all kings are tyrants simply because they are kings, then was David a tyrant? Will Christ be a tyrant when He reigns as King?
Scripture does not treat kingship itself as inherently tyrannical. God established David’s throne. He promised the Messiah through David’s royal line. And the final righteous government of Christ is not presented as a committee, legislature, republic, or rotating tribunal. It is a Kingdom.
No, that does not mean Israel’s covenant arrangement is the standard for every nation in every detail. Israel’s monarchy was a unique covenant administration, but it was built on and around a higher standard of human government that preceded Israel. Bob’s constitution is attempting to draw from that higher standard, not make a wooden attempt to recreate Israel in every respect.
But structure still matters, otherwise we would not be having this discussion. And in a theonomic nation, the form of government that most closely resembles the everlasting Kingdom is a kingdom.
So if your argument has become “all kings are tyrants,” then your objection is no longer merely to Bob’s lack of a removal mechanism. Your objection now seems to be against monarchy itself. That is a much broader claim than the one you started with.
Ideas have consequences, Clete. Rejecting monarchy itself has broader implications than just "I prefer it this way or that way."
Agreed. But if justice is the cornerstone, then “ideal” cannot mean merely “the procedure that seems most useful to us.” It must also mean a system that respects the authority structure God has authorized.
If men establish a king as the chief civil ruler, placing him above themselves in the civil order, then those same men cannot justly reserve to themselves standing authority to remove him whenever their process says so. That makes them the higher authority in the decisive case. It means they have not really placed him above themselves at all.
When God removes a king, that is just, because God has authority over the king. If God sends a prophet, commissions a man, or uses a foreign nation as an instrument of judgment, God has acted. But when lesser domestic officers claim standing authority to remove the chief civil ruler on their own, they are not merely “checking tyranny.” They are assuming an authority that has not been given to them.
And beyond that, you keep comparing my worst-case king to your idealized removal process. That is not a fair comparison. The proper comparison is worst case to worst case.
In my worst case, a wicked king rules wickedly. That is bad. I have never denied that. But he is still one visible, mortal, personally responsible man who may repent, be resisted, be rebuked, or die.
In your worst case, a corrupt removal structure sits above the throne perpetually, makes and unmakes kings, and turns the king into a puppet. That is not a safeguard against tyranny. It is an official path for tyrants to dominate the throne permanently under color of procedure.
So yes, a wicked king is dangerous. I have never denied that. But a corrupt removal structure is dangerous too, and it is unjust in principle if the men beneath the king claim authority to unmake the office above them. An ideal system must take both dangers seriously, not pretend that one sinful man is dangerous while multiple sinful men with final authority over him are safe. And if justice is the cornerstone, then the first question is not merely, “What procedure might restrain a bad king?” It is, “Who has the authority to do what?”
That is a loaded question. I am not content with creating a tyrannical system. I deny that monarchy is inherently tyrannical merely because final earthly civil authority terminates in the king. I deny that legal details do not apply to the king.
Legal details matter because law defines the king’s office, limits, duties, and jurisdiction. They matter because lesser officers must know what they may obey and what they must refuse. They matter because subjects must know what justice requires. They matter because the king himself is accountable to God for ruling according to that law.
The fact that no lower domestic office may remove him does not make those legal details meaningless.
I know where you're trying to go with this.
The phrase “shy of the king himself” answers the question.
If he is the highest judge beneath the king, then he still has a superior earthly authority: the king. Charges would be brought upward to the king, or to whatever judge the king lawfully assigns to hear the matter. If guilty, he is punished according to the criminal code and removed from office if the law requires it.
That example does not refute my argument. It illustrates it. Lesser authorities can be judged by higher authorities. The question is what happens when you reach the highest earthly civil authority.
Now apply your own example to your system.
Let’s say the men who have authority to remove the king become corrupt. How are they prosecuted? What would that process look like?
Your answer is to move the problem up a level. Instead of asking, “What happens when the highest judge beneath the king commits a crime?” we now ask, “What happens when the men above the king commit the crime?” If they are the authority that decides whether the king remains king, then they are the higher authority in the decisive case.
So who judges them?
If another body judges them, then that body is higher still. If “the law” judges them, then which men apply that law? The same problem repeats until final earthly authority terminates somewhere.
That is my point. Your system does not solve the problem you are trying to solve with an evil king. It simply moves the problem to multiple sinful men above the king. How is that better?
It’s not. It creates an infinite regress: who checks the men who check the king, and who checks the men who check them? Ad infinitum. The regress only stops when you admit that final earthly authority must terminate somewhere.
Bob’s system cuts off that regress by pinning final earthly civil authority at the king, even while fully acknowledging that the king may become wicked. That is not ignorance of the danger of a wicked king. It is recognition that putting other sinful men above him does not remove tyranny from the system. It only relocates it to men who are less visible, less personally accountable, and able to act under color of procedure.
The danger is not only that one king may become a tyrant. The danger is also that other men will become tyrants if given the machinery to dominate the throne. Bob’s system does not pretend evil men disappear. It refuses to multiply final earthly rulers in the name of restraining one.
So now that I've answered your practical question, answer my unanswered ones.
If the domestic authority enforcing the law against the king is above the king, who checks that authority when it becomes corrupt?
If your answer is “the law,” which men have final jurisdiction to interpret, apply, and enforce that law against them?
Where does Scripture authorize lesser domestic officers to hold removal jurisdiction over the chief civil ruler?
Why are you comparing my worst-case king to your idealized removal process instead of comparing worst case to worst case?
If the removal structure is captured by corrupt men, why would that not create a standing power above the throne capable of making the king a puppet?
Calling these questions “regurgitation” does not answer them. They are being repeated because they remain unanswered.
