A Proposed Monarch Removal Mechanism:
One of the most pressing concerns I have regarding the proposed constitutional monarchy is the absence of any mechanism to remove a rogue king. This is not a mere theoretical issue, but a critical flaw that could doom the entire system. While the proposal is designed to align with biblical principles of justice and governance, it overlooks a fundamental distinction between ancient Israel and any modern nation attempting to implement such a structure.
Israel operated under a unique covenantal relationship with God. When Israel’s kings strayed too far from justice, God Himself would intervene. Saul, for example, was removed by divine decree, and David was chosen to replace him. Even later kings who defied God’s law, such as Ahab or Manasseh, faced divine judgment, whether through prophetic condemnation, foreign invasion, or direct punishment from God. This newly proposed nation would not have that same divine safeguard. There would be no divine promise ensuring that God would directly remove an unjust ruler. Therefore, without a clear and enforceable process for removing a king who violates the law, the system invites tyranny.
The arguments, to this point, against a removal mechanism have been that it would only introduce something else that was “above the law,” and only achieve the undermining of the king’s authority, but this is not what such a mechanism would be. Those who remove a king for violating the law would not be placing themselves above the law, they'd be enforcing it! The king’s authority is derived from the law itself. If he systematically ignores or violates that law, then he has undermined his own legitimacy and thereby usurped his own authority.
A biblically consistent removal mechanism must, therefore, be built into the system, and the most natural way to do this is through the existing judicial structure. Judges already serve as the enforcers of justice within their respective jurisdictions, ensuring that laws are applied consistently. If a judge can be held legally accountable for malfeasance or neglect, why should the king not also be held accountable by the law?
A structured process of escalation within the judicial system would ensure that accusations against the king are neither frivolous nor ignored. If a judge over tens believes the king has violated the law, he may present his concern to a judge over fifties. If the judge over fifties finds the concern credible, he refers it to the next level. This pattern continues until the matter reaches a judge over hundreds of thousands. Only when a judge at this higher level concurs does the issue move forward as a formal charge against the king. At this stage, the case is heard by a panel composed of the highest-ranking judges in the land (i.e. those just beneath the king in authority - judges of millions, perhaps). This panel presides over a trial, ensuring that the king receives due process while also maintaining the integrity of the law.
The legal process would function as follows: Once the higher-level judge confirms the legitimacy of the charge, a formal indictment is issued, and a trial is convened. The panel of top judges serves as both jury and arbiter, with each judge weighing the evidence and arguments presented. The biblical standard of justice requires the testimony of two or three witnesses to establish any matter, and the same would apply to the king. If the judges collectively determine that the king has violated the constitution or criminal law in a manner warranting removal, the judgment is made and enforced by the same means as any other judgment to include the military if need be. Once the king is removed then a successor is appointed in accordance with the constitutional provisions.
Further, there is one additional tweak that I think the propose constitution needs. For the judiciary to function properly in this role, it must derive its authority from the constitution itself rather than serving at the pleasure of the king. If judges serve only at the king’s will, then they lack the independence necessary to hold him accountable. The law, not the king, must be the ultimate authority. This ensures that justice is upheld even against the highest ruler in the land.
Without such a mechanism, history teaches us what will happen. A wicked king who refuses to follow the law will purge his opposition, removing those who stand for justice. Over time, such a system will become corrupt and oppressive, as those willing to defy tyranny will be eliminated from society. Without a covenantal guarantee that God Himself will intervene, there must be a means for the law to be upheld against even the highest authority in the land.
A nation built on biblical principles must take seriously both justice and accountability. To ignore this necessity is to set up a system doomed to eventual failure. If the proposed constitution is to be a viable foundation for a just and enduring nation, then it must recognize the reality of human fallibility and ensure that even the king is subject to the law he is sworn to uphold.
