Jedi Council Forums - So the Empire was a legitimate government?

Post Reply | Active Topic Notification | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Author	Topic: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
Tyber_Zahn Registered: Sep '08	Date Posted: 7/2 11:13am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	Wedge Antilles seems to think so in Rogue Squadron. You have the "Back then we were rebels against the legitimate government" line.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Vrook_Lamar Registered: May '08	Date Posted: 7/2 11:30am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	A legitimate government founded on a great big lie, but still a legitimate government. The phrase "legitimate government" is however largely meaningless.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthBoba Registered: Jun '00	Date Posted: 7/2 11:36am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government? - Date Edited: 7/2 11:50am (1 edits total) Edited By: DarthBoba
	That's only because Wedge didn't watch the prequels. You don't get to call your government "legitimate" when it's existence is based on crises of your own making like Palpatine did, and I'd also think that declaring sentient species non-sentient for the sole purpose of enslaving them, along with genocide, rampant corruption, and a general lack of the 'responsibility to protect' that's all the rage for governments nowadays can also be documented in Palpatine's Empire. -----signature----- Only a Prime can defeat Vader and his Emperor.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
beccatoria Title: Host: 181st Imperial Discussion Group Registered: Dec '06	Date Posted: 7/2 11:47am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	I think there are two issues. 1) Just because something's legal doesn't mean it should be legal or that it's moral. Decades and centuries ago a whole host of things were legal that these days would horrify us and they only became illegal because people fought the law and the establishment. Not that I think this is necessarily your point, I just mean to say that the Empire may very well have been legal technically while still something worth fighting against. 2) In terms of the Empire's technical legality, I don't know if we'll ever know since likely the decision to change the Republic into an Empire's legality would be based on the laws of the Republic and we don't know what those are. We also don't know what their procedures are when the Head of State creates, well, illegal laws. See the various stuff about wiretaps and torture in the Bush administration for an example of how complicated it would likely get. Did Palpatine break the laws of the Republic when he declared the Empire? I don't know. Probably, given how complicated we knew the Republic's laws and judicial system were, it could be argued compellingly both ways. -----signature----- legatus imperatoris britanniæ superior REMEMBER: X-WING: WEDGE'S GAMBLE DISCUSSION STARTS IN DECEMBER! Han's a girl, so I got a Golden Ewok.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
marmkid Registered: Apr '01	Date Posted: 7/2 11:54am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	The Empire was just as legitimate as the New Republic was after it was formed after the Rebellion won legitmate doesnt really mean much, just that you are recognized by others as what you are calling yourself now moral, that is a different issue and i think more in line with what we would call "legitimate"
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthBoba Registered: Jun '00	Date Posted: 7/2 11:58am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	I think that the really clear point about the Empire's legality is that Palpatine created the circumstances that gave rise to the Empire and then benefited from it. At the very least, it's vote-tampering with the Naboo crisis, and given that Palpatine could read people's minds and therefore presumably see how they'd react to a given situation, I don't see how that wouldn't be blatantly illegal. Plus: "Hundreds of Senators are now controlled by a Sith Lord called Darth Sidious." I doubt he's controlling them so he can get longer bathroom breaks in Senate sessions. And of course, the legality (or lack thereof) of the Empire's formation is kindof a moot point, given how the Imperial government proceeded to enslave, exterminate, and oppress literally dozens of species. It's not clear if Palpatine had anything directly to do with most of that (although iirc he does order the Wookies to be enslaved in Dark Lord), and frankly, I think it's kindof iffy that a man who clearly views everyone who isn't him as an extension of his own will would really care what species you are, but it still happened under his government and the rules that he was able to define by decree. -----signature----- Only a Prime can defeat Vader and his Emperor.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jovieve Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 7/2 3:06pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	DarthBoba posted: I think that the really clear point about the Empire's legality is that Palpatine created the circumstances that gave rise to the Empire and then benefited from it. At the very least, it's vote-tampering with the Naboo crisis, and given that Palpatine could read people's minds and therefore presumably see how they'd react to a given situation, I don't see how that wouldn't be blatantly illegal. Plus: "Hundreds of Senators are now controlled by a Sith Lord called Darth Sidious." I doubt he's controlling them so he can get longer bathroom breaks in Senate sessions. The crises that allowed Palpatine to increase his powers until he was able to garner enough support to declare a "restructuring" of the republic to an empire and thus become an emperor, were contrived, false and illegal, so the empire was not a legitimate government as it had not developed through legitimate means for legitimate reasons. -----signature----- "Are there Sith on this planet, Master Kenobi? Are they coming for us now? Should we - I don't know - run?" "Run?" he echoed. "Run where, do you suggest?" "I don't know! Away?"
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Maximillian-Veers Registered: Apr '05	Date Posted: 7/3 6:39am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	The logic hoops some of you are jumping through to somehow attempt to legally justify rebelling against the Empire is hilarious. That the Trade Federation decided to blockade Naboo, that people decided to secede from the Republic and form the Confederacy, and that the Senate decided to support stronger and stronger measures to contain that Confederacy is nobody's fault but their own. Just because Palpatine originally created those ideas does not make him responsible for them. Of their own volition they danced to his tune. Palpatine was fairly elected, and his alterations to the government of the Galaxy were legally enacted by the Republic Senate. Governments do morally objectionable things legally every day. Palpatine is simply very good at convincing people to do what he wants them to. -----signature----- Like it or not, Emperor Palpatine's resurrection is canon. All Hail Palpatine the Undying, we will find a surviving clone and he shall reign forever. "The shield will be down in moments, you may start your landing...."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Zorrixor Registered: Sep '04	Date Posted: 7/3 7:40am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government? - Date Edited: 7/3 7:59am (5 edits total) Edited By: Zorrixor
	If I was a police officer and deliberately engineer a situation to get somebody who otherwise would not have broken into my home to break into my home just so that I can have an excuse to shoot them... yeah, the law isn't going to look very kindly on that. It's called entrapment. People aren't going to look very kindly on said police officer if what he did was ever found out even if the guy had been a wanted criminal (yeah, in certain circumstances people end up deciding to just "look the other way", but that just sums up how fragile the whole notion of "legality" is in the first place). He might enjoy a perfectly "valid" promotion while his secret remains just that; but the moment his secret is out... yeah, his career is pretty much destined for the dogs. Kiss that gold plated pension and promotion to chief constable good-bye; say hello to law suits and damages payouts. Palpatine was a Senator who deliberately provoked a trade guild into invading his planet just so he could win sympathy and obtain the powers he coveted to obliterate said trade guild and other rivals. He wouldn't have got very far in court if people hadn't gone along with it and bought into the self-aggrandizing spiel he fed them. At the end of the day, it's a case of (i) Palpatine was the master of spin, coupled with (ii) members of the Senate were either (a) oblivious, or (ii) idiots. What he did was illegal, he just managed to convince the Senate to rubber stamp it all and give him a full senatorial pardon. Of course, at the time they had no idea what he'd done, so chances are as soon as evidence emerged that he had deliberately misled the Senate I doubt he'd have got very far. But of course, by that stage he'd already secured total dictatorial control of every wheel of government, so there wasn't a whole lot the Mothmas and Organas of the galaxy could do by that point. "We petition for the Emperor's removal for having lied to the Senate!" Yeah... that'd have done a whole world of good. So... Palpatine was (probably) legally elected Emperor for life (at least, one assumes that the Senate jumped through whatever constitutional hoops it needed to go through for them to rubber stamp the constitutional reorganisation from a republic into an empire). But getting legally elected is one thing; holding onto said appointment is something else. However, it clearly gets very messy when one considers that as Emperor one of the first things Palpatine probably did was repeal all the relevant laws that actually gave the Senate the power to have him deselected (or may well have slipped it all into the initial constitutional reform bills, which in their wolf whistling applause they may have just rubber stamped without even bothering to read). Once you get to that question though you enter a totally different ball game of what is meant by the word "law". It'd have been legal as far as what the written documents said, but at that point you enter the cold reality that when the schutta well and truly hits the fan constitutions aren't worth the paper they're written on.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Maximillian-Veers Registered: Apr '05	Date Posted: 7/3 7:59am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	By the same token, however, the individual did break the law by breaking into the police officers' home and he did have a legal right to defend himself in his home. What did the police officer do to get this guy to break into his house? Display expensive property? legal. Tell the guy "You better not attempt to break into my house and steal my expensive HDTV!"? Also legal. Call the crook names and make fun of his mom? Still no law against that, that I can think of. In the end, the blame clearly belongs to the thief. If he fell into the trap, then that's clearly his fault, and the law reflects that. If the Police Dept. or City decided the officer's conduct was inappropriate, then they are within their legal right to fire him, and if the Courts decide to find him civilly liable for the criminal's death, that's within their legal prerogative as well. The key word here, however, is prerogative. If the Police Dept & Courts don't object, then the Police Officer can polish his badge for another day on the beat. -----signature----- Like it or not, Emperor Palpatine's resurrection is canon. All Hail Palpatine the Undying, we will find a surviving clone and he shall reign forever. "The shield will be down in moments, you may start your landing...."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Vrook_Lamar Registered: May '08	Date Posted: 7/3 8:08am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	Maximillian-Veers posted: Governments do morally objectionable things legally every day. Palpatine is simply very good at convincing people to do what he wants them to. So it isn't a crime unless you get caught? Corruption is a crime. Lying under oath is a crime. Treason is a crime. Abuses of trust are crimes. The rebellion was justified because the people in charge weren't doing their jobs properly. According to political science, "legitimacy" requires the consensus of consent of the people under the law.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Zorrixor Registered: Sep '04	Date Posted: 7/3 8:19am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government? - Date Edited: 7/3 8:22am (1 edits total) Edited By: Zorrixor
	The key thing with Palpatine is nobody actually knew what he'd done apart from that guy in LOE who made it into his hidden lair and learnt who Darth Sidious was, so people never got the chance to decide whether they felt he'd acted within the law or not. Palpatine was still in the situation of the police and courts not knowing that he'd been making threats to the thief's wife; like the police officer, he initially would have been hailed as a hero in the context at the time of his election because the truth didn't emerge until years afterward. Palpatine was also a step further up from even just making idle threats to the guy's wife... because he was actual the mafia boss who instructed the thief to go around to his house and beat him up. As the true leader of the Separatists, Palpatine was inherently complicit in everything they did since he was the one giving half the orders, "Go to X, nuke it; go to Y, enslave them; General Grievous do this; General Grievous do that..." and so on. Legalities aside, he was still ultimately guilty of war crimes by the existing Republic law at the time. Which is why, as I said in my point about constitutions not being worth the paper they're written on, his actual "legal status" as Emperor is ultimately down to how many laws he convinced the Senate to repeal. If he got rid of the laws that made it possible for anybody to question the legality of his appointment, then nobody could question the legality of his appointment, and that's that. Which comes back to how issues of legitimacy are to a large extent a clinal matter depending on viewpoint. He'd legally be Emperor by what the new constitution said, but based on the former constitution it'd probably have been the case a Supreme Chancellor who got their job by lying would automatically be subject to a judicial review and probably impeachment. When you turn your government into a dictatorship though, you've signed your own surrender in that respect, as even if the old government all came out saying "We take it back. Your election was illegal [by the old rules]. We no longer approve." it's at that point going to depend on the new guy actually giving a kriff and willingly stepping aside, since you've already handed him the keys to everything.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Maximillian-Veers Registered: Apr '05	Date Posted: 7/3 8:30am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government? - Date Edited: 7/3 8:31am (1 edits total) Edited By: Maximillian-Veers
	Vrook_Lamar posted: Maximillian-Veers posted: Governments do morally objectionable things legally every day. Palpatine is simply very good at convincing people to do what he wants them to. So it isn't a crime unless you get caught? I'm saying there wasn't a law on the books for which Palpatine could be tried. Vrook_Lamar posted: Corruption is a crime. Corruption usually refers to the buying of votes or other influence. Palpatine did not. Vrook_Lamar posted: Lying under oath is a crime. I don't recall Palpatine lying to anyone, although they may have felt lied to. Vrook_Lamar posted: Treason is a crime. misleading the Separatists so that they may be ultimately defeated by the Republic is the height of heroics, actually. We don't accuse double agents working for intelligence agencies of being traitors, do we? Vrook_Lamar posted: Abuses of trust are crimes. I'm not sure what law applies to feeling like your trust was betrayed. Vrook_Lamar posted: The rebellion was justified because the people in charge weren't doing their jobs properly. One can justify a lot of actions with that logic, including assassination & coup d'etats. In fact, that's exactly what Palpatine did in the first place: eliminated a bunch of bloated autocrats who weren't doing their jobs properly. The difference, of course, is that what Palpatine did was legal. Now, just because it was the law doesn't mean it was just, but it does mean that it was legal, and until the Rebellion convinced the Galaxy to turn against Palpatine, it was legitimate -----signature----- Like it or not, Emperor Palpatine's resurrection is canon. All Hail Palpatine the Undying, we will find a surviving clone and he shall reign forever. "The shield will be down in moments, you may start your landing...."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Zorrixor Registered: Sep '04	Date Posted: 7/3 8:40am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government? - Date Edited: 7/3 8:51am (4 edits total) Edited By: Zorrixor
	I'd argue there's not an absolute relationship between legality and legitimacy personally, but then I fall somewhere in the middle of that cline. As far as the law itself goes, clearly legitimacy and legality are one and the same, but from a more socially legitimate perspective I'd argue that they're not necessarily always the same thing--hence why laws change as a result of particular judgements coming to become regarded as socially wrong. But then the same goes about any law really. Look at India at the moment, just this week they've repealed an anti-homosexuality law that has been in force for over a century or so. I'm going to hazard a guess that as they've repealed it they probably haven't been actively enforcing it for a while anyway. Thus, homosexual acts have probably been illegal but still socially accepted as perfectly legitimate behaviour when put in context of more modern human rights laws and the like. I shan't waffle any further though as I could get into an entire thesis about clinal relationships between legality and sociocultural attitudes otherwise. Maximillian-Veers posted: Vrook_Lamar posted: Abuses of trust are crimes. I'm not sure what law applies to feeling like your trust was betrayed. I can't think of a specific "Breach of trust" law, as such, though a breach of trust would probably fall into the usual raft of things that someone in a public office can get impeached for (i.e. a breach of a general duty to always act in good faith, etc). More likely than not though it'd just be a deciding factor in an actual specific law, as opposed to a law in and of itself. If anything, "breach of trust" on its own is more a tort than a criminal offence--to be a crime it'd actually need to be tied into something serious, which in Palpatine's case I assume would be "misleading the public/Senate" or something.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
CaptainPeabody Registered: Jul '08	Date Posted: 7/3 9:50am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	It seems to me that there are two rather different definitions of legitimate which could be used in this case...one is purely based on law, whether or not the government itself has a firm basis in law, has been formed in a "legal" manner, etc. Absent either a pre-existing set of laws or a larger set of "international" laws governing the conduct of individual governments, however, this definition has little or no meaning. The second definition is rather larger in scope, and has to do considerations of morality, justice, and the nature of government itself. To put it broadly, legitimacy in Western thought has usually referred to the idea governments receive their power and authority not via their own laws or constitutions or their raw power and ability to enforce their will over a populace, but from some higher authority, beyond the scope of government itself. Depending upon the source--and I'm talking here about specifically Western sources, since the Eastern idea of governmental legitimacy is rather different in many respects-- this higher authority can be the Church, with the Church itself receiving its authority directly from God(in the case of medieval governance, and some later systems); God himself (as in the later Divine Right of Kings as exemplified by the jolly old tyrant Henry VIII ); or the will of the people being governed, as expressed through various outlets (as in the American tradition). Or, to put it in less specifically Earthy terms, the three usual sources of authority are: a religious and moral institution receiving its power from a higher authority, a supernatural power (specifically a singular power, with a claim to authority that is in some ways universal, and not merely a local god), or from the people governed. In addition, a closely related concept, usually bound together with the former three, involves the idea of morality--under this system, an unjust or morally wrong law, even one passed by an otherwise legitimate government, is an illegitimate law (since it breaks the higher Moral Law), and is not considered binding. (Or, to put it as St. Augustine, "An unjust law is no law at all.") In like manner, a government which is continuously unjust and/or tyrannical, however legitimately established, removes its own legitimacy when it continuously behaves in an unjust fashion. With this established, we can look at the Empire via both these definitions of legitimacy: First of all, we have seen that the legal definition of legitimacy is meaningless where there is not either a pre-existing set of laws under which the current one was established, or a broader set of "international" laws set up by some larger "international" legal institution considered to have power over the government. In the case of the Empire, we have the former situation, since the Empire was established as an act of government, under the laws and Constitution of the Republic. The problem here is we have very little idea of whether or not this action was actually legal under the current laws of the Republic. We know that the Republic possessed a constitution, which almost definitely dictated a Republican (and not Imperial) form of government--this would at face value make the declaration of Empire an unconstitutional and hence illegal action, and the Empire an illegitimate government. However, we also know that there had been a number of amendments (presumably legally) made to the Constitution over the course of the Clone Wars via the Senate which dramatically increased the power of the executive. This would seem the indicate, strangely enough, that the Senate, in and of itself, had the power under the Republic to amend the Constitution at will--in such a case, all that would have to be done to make the Declaration of New Order legal would be for the Senate(largely controlled by Palpatine) to pass a law amending the Constitution in such a manner. Otherwise, if the Senate did not have this power, and if the declaration of New Order was solely an executive action, the odds of legitimacy drop, since we would have to posit that these prior amendments had given the executive branch the ability to override and modify the constitution at will--which is rather hard to imagine, but definitely possible. So, from what we know, the legal legitimacy of the Empire is likely, but not certain. By the second definition, however, legitimacy from a higher authority, the Empire fails rather miserably. Under the first type of authority, the Jedi would obviously play the part of the legitimizing religious instititution, as they had (often much more explicitly) throughout the Republic's history-- and, since the Empire declared war on and then exterminated the Order, they would by this definition be a rather illegitimate government. However, if we consider the Sith the legitimizing religious institution for the Empire instead, then under the idea of morality and Moral Law we have established, the Empire would still be illegitimate through its unjust and tyrannical laws and actions. Under the second, the Empire obviously does not receive its authority from the Force (indeed, no Star Wars government does directly, in the same way the Jedi Order arguably does). And while the Empire could be said to receive its authority from the Dark Side of the Force, the Dark Side, in addition to being Evil, also possesses a much less than universal authority (unlike the Light Side, which we know via the Word of George is bigger and better than the Dark Side, and likely simply the Force itself). Via the third authority, the answer is the most obvious of the three--the Empire has not governed according to the will of the people (Alderaan, anyone?), or under their authority, and so is illegitimate. As Thomas Jefferson would say, "When in the course of human events, a government blows up a planet of its own citizens in order to frighten its other citizens into submission...then its bloody well time to kick those bastards out!" So, final Empire legitimacy score? Legally: 1, Otherwise: -3 Which makes for a final legitimacy score of -2. So...no dice. Sorry, Palpy. -----signature----- "Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese." -G.K. Chesterton "We have seen thee, Queen of Cheese \ Lying quietly at your ease, Gently fanned by evening breeze \ Thy fair form no flies dare seize." -James McIntyre, Cheese Poet
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Maximillian-Veers Registered: Apr '05	Date Posted: 7/3 10:04am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	The problem with your excellently written dissertation, Cpt.Peabody, is that morality is open to subjective interpretation. Under what circumstances is it morally just to take another life? Under what circumstances may you take another's property? Under what circumstances may you refuse another aide? All these questions and more represent moral quandaries, which have no hard, definable answer. One who argues that one should trust in the Force could easily be countered that the Emperor trusts in the Dark Side of the Force, and that is what directs his actions. One who argues that the Dark Side of the Force is evil only parrots the Jedi perspective, because the perspective of a Sith is not in agreement. One is finally left with falling back upon the word of the author of the fictional work to determine whom is morally righteous, but to play devil's advocate, it is possible that even Mr. Lucas himself has played a grand trick on us and has deliberately deceived us of his true viewpoint. In reality, there is no means to definitively establish a moral authority, either in fiction or real life. -----signature----- Like it or not, Emperor Palpatine's resurrection is canon. All Hail Palpatine the Undying, we will find a surviving clone and he shall reign forever. "The shield will be down in moments, you may start your landing...."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History