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?
Lord_Vivec Registered: Apr '06	Date Posted: 7/4 2:50pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government? - Date Edited: 7/4 2:53pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Lord_Vivec
	Maximillian-Veers posted: Lord_Vivec posted: The rebellion was justified because they won. The ends justify the means, eh? Most Rebels would recoil at that sort of logic. Victory for victory's sake isn't much of a motivator unless you are a particularly power-hungry & greedy individual. I agree that a law remains relevent only so long as the government is strong enough to enforce it. What I was disagreeing with was the assertion that some people were making was that rebellion had legal justification. It did not. Moral justification, perhaps, but certainly not legal. It has nothing to do with "ends justifying the means." If the laws that prohibit something are no longer in place and the government that enforced said laws is no longer there, then the laws don't matter. Whether it had a legal justification at the time of inception is irrelevant because that was in the past and the laws that were relevant are no longer applicable. In other words, it's a moot academic point at best. Maximillian-Veers posted: Havac posted: No, I'm pretty sure that contributing support and giving away state secrets, let along actively leading, a government with which the Republic is at war constitutes treason. "Just because Palpatine led the Confederacy to war against the Republic doesn't mean he was responsible for it, so it's not illegal" is one of the more nonsensical arguments I've seen on here. All of those activities led to the eventual destruction of the Separatists, separatists elements who would likely have rebelled against the Republic or created other threats anyway. Instead, Palpatine played the role of ultimate double agent and brought them down, saving the Galaxy and restoring peace. I'd say that's pretty heroic, actually. Definitely nothing illegal. Maximillian-Veers posted: The ends justify the means, eh? -----signature----- "Those of us who don't believe in science are being attacked by forces we don't understand...like momentum, acceleration, and gravity." Gavin Newsom for CA Gov '10! Property of JEDI_TEEGIRLOO Currently the most attractive guy in the EUC
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jovieve Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 7/4 5:03pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government? - Date Edited: 7/4 5:05pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Jovieve
	GrandAdmiralJello posted: You might perhaps conclude that I'm generally amused at the willingness of enlightened, 21st century people to abjure the rule of law and to favor arbitrary justice. Regardless of what motives you choose to ascribe to my posts, I might remind you that it doesn't really matter. The point stands regardless of who it is that makes it. I beg pardon for trying to answer the question correctly. Dude, then I suggest you go back and read the original poster's question so you will see that people on this thread have perfectly answered the question. No, it was not a legitimate government by any means. The OP wasn't talking about law courts and evidentiary hearings nor did he specify from what POV, so no need to try to take the high ground here. Our responses are quite accurate. -----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
GrandAdmiralJello Title: Emperor • EUC • JCC Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 7/4 6:57pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	Forgive me, "dude," but you cannot declare an argument complete by fiat. Especially when those participants whom you name have not bothered to consider the terminology of the question. Legitimacy is a legal construct. If you had not completely ignored my response to your post, you'd know that. How about a reply to my response? If your rsesponse is "quite accurate" then please prove that it is so--don't just say so. It makes me sad when people ignore responses to posts and just declare victory. You don't want to make me sad, do you? -----signature----- SPQR Vates Jυλιαδις Moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque - Ennius Tu regere imperio populos, Romanæ, memento; hæ tibi erunt artes; pascisque imponere morem, parcere subjectis et debellare superbos - Virgil
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Havac Title: Lit Mod of War Registered: Sep '05	Date Posted: 7/4 7:06pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	GrandAdmiralJello posted: He is not guilty until charged, and there is no party competent to do so. Please do not presume that you constitute the Republic's legal system, Havac. That is fascism. HIM the Emperor is a hero and a champion of law and order. You cannot prove otherwise without unconstitutionally assuming the role of judge and jury and admitting evidence that has been unlawfully acquired. Factual guilt, not legal guilt, Jello. -----signature----- "Is there a captain's hat involved in this?" "I . . . don't know what department I want. I need . . . pants."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
QuentinGeorge Registered: Dec '03	Date Posted: 7/4 7:18pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	As an omniscient viewer of the events that took place, yes I can say that Palpatine has committed treason. Whether an in-universe trial takes place...well, who cares? Irrelevant to the point. It's like saying I can't call Etain an idiot because I've never seen her take an IQ test. -----signature----- Yar
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
GrandAdmiralJello Title: Emperor • EUC • JCC Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 7/4 7:21pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government? - Date Edited: 7/4 7:27pm (3 edits total) Edited By: GrandAdmiralJello
	Havac: Is that what "by any definition" means, now? And what does that have to do with legitimacy? QG: Except it's nothing like that at all, because idiocy is not tied to an IQ exam whereas legitimacy is expressly tied in with the law. Let's not be sloppy, Litizens. Any fool can make a point based on the films, but that's not the basis of the thread and the original question. Wedge Antilles has not seen the films, nor do the films reflect on the GFFA. And you mention irrelevance? The irony would be comical, if not for the fact that Lit's most articulate users seem to be completely missing the purpose of this thread. beccatoria had observed the important nuance in the beginning of the thread--noting that whereas the Empire may be a legal institution, it is not moral. Since morality is subjective, she is free to make that distinction and it was good and proper of her to do so. Follow her example. Ordinarily I could--and would--challenge her assertion, but there's no need to since this thread is not about the Empire's moral underpinnings. Her argument was properly nuanced and as such, will face no objection from my part. -----signature----- SPQR Vates Jυλιαδις Moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque - Ennius Tu regere imperio populos, Romanæ, memento; hæ tibi erunt artes; pascisque imponere morem, parcere subjectis et debellare superbos - Virgil
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
QuentinGeorge Registered: Dec '03	Date Posted: 7/4 7:23pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	I bet you also think OJ isn't a murderer, Jello. -----signature----- Yar
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
GrandAdmiralJello Title: Emperor • EUC • JCC Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 7/4 7:24pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	What I think doesn't matter, since he was tried and found innocent. It's regrettable, but there you have it. -----signature----- SPQR Vates Jυλιαδις Moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque - Ennius Tu regere imperio populos, Romanæ, memento; hæ tibi erunt artes; pascisque imponere morem, parcere subjectis et debellare superbos - Virgil
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Havac Title: Lit Mod of War Registered: Sep '05	Date Posted: 7/4 7:45pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	GrandAdmiralJello posted: Havac: Is that what "by any definition" means, now? And what does that have to do with legitimacy? By any modern definition of treason, he's factually guilty, yes. And it has less to do directly with legitimacy and more to do with refuting ridiculous arguments that cropped up in the thread. -----signature----- "Is there a captain's hat involved in this?" "I . . . don't know what department I want. I need . . . pants."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
blackmyron Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 7/4 7:46pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	Exactly what IU court of law determines the ultimate legitimacy of the government? If there is a challenge between rivals for the legitimate government of a nation, is it automatically settled if one of the claimants ceases to exist? Or does it become irrelevant at that point? -----signature----- Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Come on Dave, you're taking this stuff too seriously." - George Lucas "Reality can rarely be explained without contradictions." - Karnak
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
GrandAdmiralJello Title: Emperor • EUC • JCC Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 7/5 1:03am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	Well, I'm certain the NR found it relevant to delegitimize the government it defeated but it really does become an academic exercise at that point. Had the Empire returned, it would have delegitimized the NR in turn. What matters is the substance of those cases, and we know where the NR stood from Mothma's little declaration: and those arguments for illegitimacy are thin indeed. If highly placed NR officers like Antilles are certain the Empire was the legitimate government, that's as clear a sign as any that such findings were simply political. But as becca would point out, that didn't stop the Rebellion from fighting the Empire. And as I would point out, in a slightly different way, that didn't stop the Rebellion from fighting the Empire. -----signature----- SPQR Vates Jυλιαδις Moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque - Ennius Tu regere imperio populos, Romanæ, memento; hæ tibi erunt artes; pascisque imponere morem, parcere subjectis et debellare superbos - Virgil
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jovieve Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 7/5 8:49am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	GrandAdmiralJello posted: Forgive me, "dude," but you cannot declare an argument complete by fiat. Especially when those participants whom you name have not bothered to consider the terminology of the question. To quote Inigo Montoya, "fiat" "I do not think that word means what you think it does." GeneralAdmiralJello posted: Legitimacy is a legal construct. If you had not completely ignored my response to your post, you'd know that. Legitimate has more than one meaning, dude. If you'd looked it up, you'd know that. GeneralAdmiralJello posted: How about a reply to my response? If your rsesponse is "quite accurate" then please prove that it is so--don't just say so. It makes me sad when people ignore responses to posts and just declare victory. I did. Basically you just don't want to accept the reasoning because you're only arguing from your own POV and only one definition of the word "legitimate" which is limiting your ability to discuss. Reach out and expand your mind, dude. -----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
DarkLordoftheFins Title: RPG & Minis Forum D6 Game Master Registered: Apr '07	Date Posted: 7/5 10:53am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	Well, that´s an old argument. I heard it before and again. There is an international law forum where this is raging for ages among intlawyers and star wars fans. I see a problem with both sides of the argument. Is the Empire legitimate? By which rules, laws, customs or in which context? There is only one thing we really know about Star Wars policy. It works different from ours. Why you ask? Senate, Senators and all these familiar terms? You can´t step into any existing body and declare yourself head of a new form of gouvernment. It is not possible in our world. Therefore it is strongly hinted our rules do not apply. What are the new rules? I saw latin terms here. Latin is not existent in SW, is it? We don´t know. Fact is, we don´t know if a Chancellor has the power to intall an Empire. Padme´s reaction seems to indicate Palpatine actually had that kinda right. But that´s interpretation. If you take the rules of our planet and judge SW by it, it´s simple. We don´t know either. Running into a senate and shouting we are now the Empire . . . is irrelevant. Whoever argues that is an legal act should go and study. It´s a statement. At best. Actually it was a speech. No gouvernment in existence would change from that. None would actually listen. So we need to know what was the real act of founding the Empire? Was it a vote? Or simply the declaration? Or a factual take-over? We know it was no forceful take-over, since the Senate continued to exist. If last, by whom and who resisted? We don´t know this stuff. All we see is a speech. Hitler did a speech when he ended the Weimar Republic. That was good show. He had ended it several hours before, actually. Through an official act under which his hand-writing was. And later he played save by even letting people vote about it. The speech. Equivalent to Palpatine´s "show" - changed nothing. It only sold the new policy to the people. -----signature----- Member of the "Triumvirate" - GM of 133 ABY I have seen younger man called old - LordT Some men just wanna watch the world burn . . .
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Havac Title: Lit Mod of War Registered: Sep '05	Date Posted: 7/5 11:27am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	All it really takes to install a new "form" of government is to reform the constitution. You could do it in America today with a constitutional amendment. And since we already know from CW material that the Senate had the ability to alter the Republic's constitution, it's highly dubious that it wasn't a perfectly constitutional, legitimate transition. -----signature----- "Is there a captain's hat involved in this?" "I . . . don't know what department I want. I need . . . pants."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Zorrixor Registered: Sep '04	Date Posted: 7/5 11:32am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government? - Date Edited: 7/5 11:36am (4 edits total) Edited By: Zorrixor
	I'd more or less agree with that. The farcical thing about the Senate if in granting the Chancellor "emergency powers" they had already given him the power to go and grant himself the position for life is that it'd mean they'd already signed off on an elective dictatorship years earlier during the Clone Wars. Which would mean all Palpatine did was change the signs hanging outside his office from "Chancellor" to "Emperor", because for all intents and purposes he'd already have been a despot. It'd make it almost the same situation as when he dissolved the Imperial Senate, because the Senate's powers would already (completely voluntarily) have been made worthless if the executive already had full sovereignty over all matters of state. Becoming Emperor would then have largely been a semantic change, with him subsequently only getting rid of the Senate after enough time had gone by to then brush the other various wheels of the old order under the carpet one-by-one. Hence it not being an "all overnight" change in ROTS, but rather just a gradual erosion. Which is why I tend to agree that I think all we saw in ROTS was him outlining his white paper for constitutional reform (basically: "I am the man to lead this nation...for life!") and the Senate (off screen) immediately proceeding to rubber stamp the necessary bills because they saw him as the great saviour of the Republic who led them through the Clone Wars and saved them from the Jedi rebellion. If they'd already rubber stamped those bills during the Clone Wars to give him total control, yeah, well... then they deserved to end up dead for being dumb.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History