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?
DarkLordoftheFins Title: RPG & Minis Forum D6 GM & RPF Summer Champion Registered: Apr '07	Date Posted: 7/5 11:54am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	So you know it is build after the american model or you assume? Because I actually think it was build after an historical model. Which wouldn´t have allowed the Senate alone to change that . . . but actually you are thinking analogue . . . and meanwhile assuming a lot out of context. Was there a vote? Except his emergency powers? Did he only change the name and nothing else? I think so. But I don´t know. It wasn´t in any movie or book. And we talking about the senate, representing only a few planets in the galaxy, changing a government that rules many many more planets. Very different from the US, or Germany, or Italy . . . so I think assuming it works like the US gov is . . . daring, at best. -----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
Zorrixor Registered: Sep '04	Date Posted: 7/5 12:01pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government? - Date Edited: 7/5 12:07pm (4 edits total) Edited By: Zorrixor
	Well I'm not from the US so aren't able to apply the US model word for word, but if anything I'd say it is probably closer to the EU whereby whether individual Senators need to go back to their homeworlds and hold referendums is probably dependent on their individual sets of laws... either way, I'm just giving my basic interpretations of what we've been presented in the films, which has three main elements: 1. "Emergency Powers" during Clone Wars 2. Declaration of an Empire in ROTS 3. Dissolution of Senate in ANH His control was obviously absolute come #3; until we see more of the Dark Times it's hard really to know exactly what "becoming emperor" actually entailed. Did the Senate lose all powers in ROTS and just become pointless for the next 19 years? Or had they already voted in Palpatine as a dictator long before he turned the Republic into an Empire? Or were people so enamoured with Palpatine as their saviour that they just treated his every word as gospel? Either way we can't be totally sure which is why it ultimately comes down to personal view.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Havac Title: Lit Mod of War Registered: Sep '05	Date Posted: 7/5 12:35pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	DarkLordoftheFins posted: So you know it is build after the american model or you assume? Because I actually think it was build after an historical model. Which wouldn´t have allowed the Senate alone to change that . . . but actually you are thinking analogue . . . and meanwhile assuming a lot out of context. Was there a vote? Except his emergency powers? Did he only change the name and nothing else? I think so. But I don´t know. It wasn´t in any movie or book. And we talking about the senate, representing only a few planets in the galaxy, changing a government that rules many many more planets. Very different from the US, or Germany, or Italy . . . so I think assuming it works like the US gov is . . . daring, at best. No, I'm not assuming anything about an American system. If I were assuming an American system, I'd assume it would take not just the Senate, but individual planetary agreement and the process would probably take years. My point in mentioning America was that just about any constitution has a perfectly legal, legitimate process to amend it. And constitutional alteration is all a change in form of government is. It's not as if the constitution says "This is a representative democracy and always will be" and in order to become a dictatorship you have to throw out the constitution and start over. It's not Civilization where there's a hard division of what "form" of government you have and you pick one. The constitution doesn't have to specify "This is a representative democracy" -- it just sets up the government, and we look at how it works and say, "Oh, that's a representative democracy." Change the way it works and it becomes a dictatorship. You don't have to pass a new constitution. You just have to pass an amendment that replaces "the head of government shall be the Supreme Chancellor, who shall be elected from the Senate for a term of four years" to "the head of government shall be the Emperor, who shall be declared by the Senate for a term of life" and various other such alterations, and bang, you've got the Galactic Empire. We know, from Clone Wars material, that the Senate had the ability to alter the Republic's constitution, seemingly without having to go to any greater lengths than a senatorial vote (though it's possible there was more to it). We have no reason to believe that the change from Republic to Empire did not occur by the same perfectly routine, normal, already-used legal mechanism. -----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
GrandAdmiralJello Title: Emperor • EUC • JCC Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 7/5 12:48pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government? - Date Edited: 7/5 12:50pm (1 edits total) Edited By: GrandAdmiralJello
	Jovieve posted: 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. Ah, I see. So your "reasoning" involves an arbitrary shifting of the goal posts. Way to go. So which imaginary definition are we operating from? I'll provide you with the full entry from the OED, and you can tell me which one makes sense in this case. And I picked the OED so we don't have to rely on some silly peasant's dictionary--let's go with the only one that matters. the OED posted: A. adj. 1. a. Of a child: Having the status of one lawfully begotten; entitled to full filial rights. Said also of a parent, and of lineal descent. (The only sense in Johnson.) According to English common law, all children are legitimate who are born in lawful wedlock, and no others. According to the civil and canon law, a child born of unmarried parents who might at the time lawfully contract marriage becomes legitimate if his parents afterwards are lawfully married. By the Legitimacy Acts of 1926 and 1959 a child born of unmarried parents becomes legitimate if they subsequently marry. 1494 FABYAN Chron. VII. ccxxv. 253 This Kynge Wyllyam vsed alwey lemmans, wherfore he dyed without issu legyttymat. 1555 EDEN Decades 137 The children of their owne wyues they counte to bee not legitimate. 1602 MARSTON Antonio's Rev. V. v. Wks. 1856 I. 141 Thy true begotten, most legitimate And loved issue. 1683 Brit. Spec. 173 By Lineal and Legitimate Descent the true and unquestionable Heir. 1754-62 HUME Hist. Eng., Hen. III, II. 54 The common law had deemed all those bastards who were born before wedlock: By the canon law they were legitimate. 1827 JARMAN Powell's Devises (ed. 3) II. 347 A person who at the date of the will was dead, leaving..no legitimate children. 1841 LANE Arab. Nts. I. 62 The offspring of his female slave..if begotten by him..he may recognise as his own legitimate child. 1882 A. MACFARLANE Consanguin. 4 Legitimate co-parent of a child. b. transf. Genuine, real: opposed to ‘spurious’. Obs. 1551 BIBLE Apocrypha To Rdr., They are not receaued nor taken as legyttymate and leafull, as wel of the Hebrues as of the whole Churche. 1634 T. JOHNSON Parey's Chirurg. XXVI. vii. (1678) 633 By the Taste..we..distinguish the true legitimate [Medicins] from the adulterate. 1699 BENTLEY Phal. 327 Mr. B. maintains Astypala to be a legitimate word, because we read it in the present copy of Scylax. 1804 Europ. Mag. XLV. 347/2 The above remarks do not apply to what I shall call collections of legitimate remains. 1818 TODD, Legitimate..2. Genuine; not spurious: as, a legitimate work, the legitimate production of such an author. 2. a. Conformable to law or rule; sanctioned or authorized by law or right; lawful; proper. 1638 BAKER tr. Balzac's Lett. (vol. II.) 13 An evill that should last so long, might in some sort seeme to be made legitimate. 1645 MILTON Tetrach. Wks. 1738 I. 226 The Text therfore uses this phrase, that they shall be one flesh, to justify and make legitimate the rites of Marriage-bed. 1664 H. MORE Myst. Iniq. 257 A Legitimate Husband. 1832 W. IRVING Alhambra I. 79 They [Moors] are a nation..without a legitimate country or a name. 1849 MACAULAY Hist. Eng. vii. II. 238 What would, under ordinary circumstances, be justly condemned as persecution, may fall within the bounds of legitimate selfdefence. 1852 H. ROGERS Ecl. Faith (1853) 436 There is..a legitimate way of influencing the will. 1859 J. CUMMING Ruth ix. 152 Its ancient and legitimate owner. b. Normal, regular; conformable to a recognized standard type; spec. of a gun (cf. BASTARD a. 6a); of a disease (= EXQUISITE). In Sporting, applied to flat-racing as opposed to hurdleracing or steeplechasing. the legitimate drama: the body of plays, Shakespearian or other, that have a recognized theatrical and literary merit; also ellipt. (Theatr. slang) the legitimate. Also in other collocations. So as n., an actor of legitimate drama. 1669 STURMY Mariner's Mag. v. 64 Gunners call them Legitimate Pieces, as have due length of their Chase, according to the height of their bores; Bastard Pieces are such as have shorter Chases, than the Proportion of their Bore doth require. 1684 tr. Bonet's Merc. Compit. v. 161 The Physician must not use astringents, in a legitimate Burning fever. 1727-51 CHAMBERS Cycl. s.v. Delivery, A legitimate delivery is that which happens at the just term, i.e. in the tenth lunar month. 1799 Sporting Mag. XV. 135/2 A lady to whom the public are so much indebted for the support which the legitimate drama has received from her exertions, and who..has disdained the pantomine and spectacle to which the German muse so often stoops. 1812 Theatrical Inquisitor Oct. I. 72 Mr. E treads closely upon the heels of the legitimate stage. 1821 BYRON Mar. Fal. Pref. 18 note, While I was in the sub-committee of Drury Lane Theatre..we did our best to bring back the legitimate drama. 1838 DICKENS Let. 16 Jan. (1965) I. 355 Let the Legitimate Drama put this, and Joan of Arc..into her pipe. 1855 MACAULAY Hist. Eng. xiv. III. 468 Tillotson still keeps his place as a legitimate English classic. 1877 Era Almanack 97 Always willing to patronise the legitimate. 1884 YATES Recoll. I. v. 211 My youthful admiration of Shakespeare and the legitimate drama. 1888 Sportsman 28 Nov. (Farmer), The winding up of the legitimate season. 1909 P. G. WILLIAMS in Sat. Even. Post 5 June 17/2 The vaudeville actor is much more thrifty than his colleague in the legitimate. 1933 P. GODFREY Back-Stage xvi. 207 The principal comedian of Have a Nibble..scandalizes the ‘legitimates’ by discarding the jacket of his sprightly plus-four suit. 1947 N. MARSH Final Curtain v. 84, I haven't got the wind for dancing..and the ‘legitimate’ gives me a pain in the neck. 1952 N.Y. Herald Tribune 28 Aug. 16/7 A revision of New York City's building code to spur the construction of new legitimate theaters. 1968 Globe & Mail (Toronto) 17 Feb. 24 Nor is it [sc. the city] avoiding the inevitable responsibility of building a smaller legitimate house. 1972 N.Y. Times 3 Nov. 1/1 The new hotel would include..a legitimate theater. 1975 Scottish Field Jan. 9/1 With his feet now firmly planted in both acting spheresthe so-called legitimate theatre and the pantomime larkthis young~looking veteran [sc. Rikki Fulton]..feels fit to accept any professional challenge. c. Of a sovereign's title: Resting on the strict principle of hereditary right. Hence, said of a sovereign, a kingdom, etc. 1812 Niles' Reg. I. 404/2 The ‘legitimate’ sovereigns of Russia, Austria and Prussia. 1821 H. COLERIDGE Ess. (1851) I. 8 We like the style of the Legitimate poets, as we respect the court and Legitimate monarchs. 1847 DISRAELI Tancred III. vi, But in these days a great capitalist has deeper roots than a sovereign prince, unless he is very legitimate. 1860 Sat. Rev. 14 Apr. 457/1 It is not in irony, but in sober earnest, that we express our belief, that any throne is, in practice, called legitimate which has not had the consent of the nation to its..existence. 1885 FAIRBAIRN Catholicism iii. (1899) 96 In literature it [the Catholic Revival] appeared as Romanticism, in politics as legitimate and theocratic theory. d. Sanctioned by the laws of reasoning; logically admissible or inferrible. 1797 Encycl. Brit. (ed. 3) x. 221/2 If the first principles be clear and evident, and every syllogism in some legitimate mode or figure, the conclusion of the whole must infallibly be admitted. 1814 D. STEWART Hum. Mind II. iii. §1. 247 Every such process of reasoning..may be resolved into a series of legitimate syllogisms. 1840 MILL Diss. & Disc. (1875) I. 397 Both [methods] were legitimate logical processes. 1850 MCCOSH Div. Govt. III. ii. (1874) 409 We have followed them [principles] to their legitimate consequences. 1855 PRESCOTT Philip II, I. II. ix. 249 This bloody catastrophe was a legitimate result of the policy which he advised. e. In Jazz colloq., designating ‘serious’ music as distinct from jazz or popular music. 1927 Melody Maker Apr. 359/2 The number lends itself exceptionally well to the symphonic treatment it has been given, the orchestration is very fine and the modulated passages and general arrangement make it, although a little too ‘legitimate’ for dancing, perfect from a concert point of view. 1933 Fortune Aug. 94 Other jazz heroes such as the Dorseys..have become more or less legitimate musicians for radio purposes. 1946 MEZZROW & WOLFE Really Blues (1957) xvii. 341 The New Orleans drum patterns..were closest to ‘legitimate’ music. 1969 New Yorker 20 Dec. 52/3 It would have been interesting if he had made similar measurements during a performance by a ‘commercial’that is, a jazz or dance-bandplayer..to compare with those of a ‘legitimate’, or symphonic, player. 3. quasi-adv. Obs. 1578 Galway Arch. in 10th Rep. Hist. MSS. Comm. App. v. 427 Both he and his chyldren of his body legytymat begotten. B. n. 1. a. A legitimate child. 1583 STUBBES Anat. Abus. I. (1879) 97, I had rather we had many legittimats than many illegittimates. 1842 C. WHITEHEAD R. Savage (1845) III. vi. 381 Their legitimates do them small honour, sometimes. 1865 Dublin Univ. Mag. I. 8 Legitimates and natural children were brought up..or shaken up together. b. A legitimate sovereign. Also, one who supports or advocates the title of such sovereigns. Cf. A. 2c. 1821 H. COLERIDGE Ess., On Parties in Poetry (1851) I. 6 Waller, a true Legitimate in politics. 1830 GEN. P. THOMPSON Exerc. (1842) I. 268 The experiment of what has been termed constitutional government, has been tried and failed. The legitimates refused this, while they might have had it. 1847 EMERSON Repr. Men, Napoleon Wks. (Bohn) I. 374 No longer the throne was occupied..by a small class of legitimates. c. Austral. slang. (See quot. and cf. LEGITIMACY 4.) Obs. 1827 P. CUNNINGHAM 2 Yrs. N.S. Wales II. xxiv. 116 Our society is divided into circles as in England... Next, we have the legitimates, or cross-breds,namely, such as have legal reasons for visiting this colony; and the illegitimates, or such as are free from that stigma. 2. Something to which one has a legitimate title. Obs. rare1. 1649 MILTON Eikon. (1770) 31 Many princes have been rigorous in laying taxes on their subjects by the head, but of any King heretofore that made a levy upon their wit, and seized it as his own legitimate, I have not whom beside to instance. So, which definition are we using in order to try and justify this point? The Empire is born of unmarried parents? Perhaps the Empire is unreal, and therefore illegitimate? Or perhaps you're a jazz musician and disapprove of the Imperial March? Take your time. Although I expect you to declare victory--again, by fiat (and should you like, we can explore every possible nuance of that word, as well). I've never heard a QED when the Q in question has not been D'd. I suppose there's a first for everything. -----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
darthcaedus1138 Registered: Oct '07	Date Posted: 7/5 1:02pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	Jello...I've seen a lot of things in my life but that....was....AWESOME! -----signature----- Don't panic. Until the future becomes the present, it is merely distraction. Beautiful Blueberries. Star Wars EU Podcast, Jedi Beacon, Proud Co-host. http://www.vimeo.com/jedibeacon 2nd Most Attractive Guy in the EUC
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Zorrixor Registered: Sep '04	Date Posted: 7/5 1:14pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government? - Date Edited: 7/5 1:33pm (11 edits total) Edited By: Zorrixor
	While I don't necessarily lean either way on the dispute over "legitimacy", to be fair, even the OED doesn't always account for all the unorthodox uses of words various schools of thought apply nowadays. So even the OED can ultimately only give the subjective conclusion of its authors. Are those authors in in a learned position and the initial presumption be to trust it? Sure. But, that said, it doesn't always account for all emerging schools of thought. Case in point, each time they put out a new edition I frequently come across articles from more traditionalist academics who always go voicing their displeasure at the growing tendency of the OED to unilaterally decide to go and omit hyphens--even in cases in which everyone still uses them. Exactly on what grounds they do that remains unknown. Some of the cynical commentators conclude they're in league with the publishing industry to cut down on ink; others Greenpeace. Anyway, to take a specific example, let's take the word "law" itself. Having gone through law school, one of the very first things we studied was that the dictionary will only tell you half the story, and that the concept of "law" is in fact very hard to pin down--hence why we have courts at all: because people don't always agree. If things were truly black and white, there'd be no need for appeal courts. As to which one of you I actually agree with? I haven't been following fully so I can't really judge. Havac posted: It's not as if the constitution says "This is a representative democracy and always will be" and in order to become a dictatorship you have to throw out the constitution and start over. You can even take that a step further... the UK doesn't even have a written constitution. Parliament is sovereign; what it says goes, period. That's all there is to it. If the Commons decided to go and redeclare the British Empire and rename the Prime Minister Emperor, so long as it was approved by the Lords, well, that'd be that. Somewhere in the reform bill they'd probably need to expunge the monarch's role in approving legislative matters if they truly wanted the new Emperor to be completely in control, but aside from that nothing is stopping them doing it. As a current example, it's why the British Government can get elected on a promise to hold a referendum of the EU Lisbon Treaty but then go and change their minds and just ratify anyway it all on their own. Parliament is sovereign; the people are not. From how easily the New Republic turned into the Galactic Alliance, I'd wager that not that much interest is placed in what individual planetary citizens say. It's probably: "If you don't like it, you can always withdraw your Senator from the Senate and go back to running yourselves." It's why V for Vendetta is actually a very plausible film... at least the starting premise. I don't really expect people would go marching around en masse in Guy Fawkes masks. But the idea of a High Chancellor? Sure thing.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
GrandAdmiralJello Title: Emperor • EUC • JCC Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 7/5 1:33pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	But there's a reason we choose the OED over other dictionaries in these disputes, because the term "legitimate government" has a long history and isn't subject to vagueries of slang and dialect. I've heard the word "legit" before and though I'm not entirely certain what it means, I'm quite positive that this is not the sense that Wedge Antilles was using. Common sense dictates whether we use a dictionary at all in these instances--whether the dispute depends on hard definitions or not. And certainly, whereas the specifics of the law might well vary, the fact that legitimate is a legal term in this instance must be beyond dispute at this point. And since Jovieve opined that consulting a dictionary would broaden my mind, I certainly had to use the most authoritative one--no? -----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
Zorrixor Registered: Sep '04	Date Posted: 7/5 1:35pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	Well, yes, I don't deny that it was a good comeback.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Charlemagne19 Registered: Jul '00	Date Posted: 7/5 10:23pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	My .02. Well it's a legitimate government in the context that the corrupt Congress gave dictatorial powers to Senator Palpatine and shredded the Constitution. On the other hand, the entire thing is built on a massive con job that has Palpatine commit so many incredible crimes that it is difficult to imagine what sort of crimes you could actually charge him with since High Treason against your own government is something that you usually don't have diplomatic immunity from. At least, I think.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Maximillian-Veers Registered: Apr '05	Date Posted: 7/6 6:43am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government? - Date Edited: 7/6 6:43am (1 edits total) Edited By: Maximillian-Veers
	Havac posted: alpatine aided and abetted enemies of the Republic to rebel against it in a vast, galaxy-encompassing war. Really? Darth Sidious' role in the Separatist hierarchy seems to have been to offer cryptic advice. He wasn't the one who created the CIS (that was Dooku), he wasn't the one who created the corrupt environment which allowed a mercantile conglomerate to buy military hardware and threaten the sovereignty of a Republic world in a way the former Republic was powerless to stop, and he didn't create the environment which led many of the major corporate interests in the Republic to rebel against it. He simply coalesced them into a single, controllable, and ultimately destroyable political entity, instead of allowing them to break off one by one, splintering the republic into warring corporate fiefdoms. Havac posted: A handful of lone, dissatisfied planets would have created the Clone Wars on their own anyway? Not in the form it did, no. Without the Clone Army, the Republic would not have been able to prevent the Separatist elements from breaking off one by one, using their personal military assets to strong-arm worlds under their control, and turning the galaxy into a hodge-podge of militant corporate principalities. By taking the actions Palpatine did, he preserved the unified Galactic government. Havac posted: It didn't take Dooku dangling the promise of unfettered corporate reign to tempt all those corporations into attempting to overthrow the government under which they profited? It doesn't take a genius to see the possibilities. If the Separatists weren't already thinking about seceding from the Republic, they'd have never shown up to the meeting in the first place. All Dooku did was sell the merits of working together. Havac posted: ...so it's not Palpatine's fault at all that he staged a war that did tremendous damage to the Republic and cost millions of lives for the sole purpose of his own political advancement. Millions would have died anyway as the corporate powers carved up the Republic for their own profit. Palpatine saved the galaxy with his actions. Havac posted: It doesn't absolve him of guilt for treason. It's only treason if you ultimately don't serve the interests of the state to which you have sworn allegiance. A double-agent may be called upon to kill someone of their own nation to protect their cover, or to further their mission. Likewise, Palpatine's actions may have led to sacrifices being made in the Republic, but those sacrifices ultimately led to a Republic victory. Havac posted: He didn't draw them out and have them arrested like any kind of halfway reasonable sting operation. Without the Clone Wars, there'd have been no means to make it stick. Those arrested would only be individuals within the Corporations they represented whom would still harbor the same goals and objectives. Furthermore, if those entities chose to secede then and there, there would be no stopping them. Even if those entities didn't select that moment to secede, with each of them holding large numbers of votes in the Galactic Senate, there's no way those who were arrested wouldn't be acquitted or pardoned off. Havac posted: he didn't use his absolute control of the leadership to send all the top conspirators to one place where they could be captured, use his codes to shut down their droid army, and hand the Republic a victory until three years into the war, once his personal objectives, which had nothing to do with protecting the Republic, had been met. If the Republic couldn't be turned into a stronger, more purposeful form of government, it had no chance to survive, and the Clone Wars were the only thing which were going to make it happen. Havac posted: "But I did it for the greater good of America" is not going to get the President off the hook for agreeing to let Al Qaeda bomb Los Angeles, no matter how much bull gets spun. Some people assert that FDR deliberately goaded the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor because he felt the United States needed to enter World War II, and without it the nation wouldn't have been willing. There really isn't any questioning were FDR's loyalties lie or that the United States came out of World War II a stronger, more influential power. Irregardless, what Palpatine did or didn't do is irrelevant to the question of the legitimacy of the Empire. That President Nixon committed crimes did not immediately de-legitimize the United States of America, nor would that have been the case if it were George Washington who had done it. The Senate voted to enact an Empire, and thus it is legitimate, irregardless of the past or future crimes of said Empire's head of state. -----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
Maximillian-Veers Registered: Apr '05	Date Posted: 7/6 6:57am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	Zorrixor posted: .... You can even take that a step further... the UK doesn't even have a written constitution. Parliament is sovereign; what it says goes, period. That's all there is to it. If the Commons decided to go and redeclare the British Empire and rename the Prime Minister Emperor, so long as it was approved by the Lords, well, that'd be that. Somewhere in the reform bill they'd probably need to expunge the monarch's role in approving legislative matters if they truly wanted the new Emperor to be completely in control, but aside from that nothing is stopping them doing it. The unique thing about British democracy is that the Monarch is theoretically the protector of said democracy. British sovereignty legally originates with the crown, which provides it's assent to parliament. Legally speaking, Parliament should not be able to eliminate the monarchy, but the monarchy could dissolve a parliament attempting to end the current state of British government. Of course, realistically speaking, it would be a world turned upside down where the people rally behind the sovereign to prevent the tyranny of democratically elected officials, but I can dream... -----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
Brett_Bass Registered: Apr '03	Date Posted: 7/30 9:35pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	Just want to point out that this thread is genius. A thoroughly-enjoyable and enlightening read. -----signature----- Fleet Junkie. Ex-Official Senator, Gilad Pellaeon Fan Thread. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. Semper Fidelis. Silver Lannik™/Golden Ewok No-Prize/Statuette™ recipient. Special Golden Ewok™ WARLORD Statuette (with 8km SSD plinth) recipient.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Xammer Registered: Jan '09	Date Posted: 7/31 2:21am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government? - Date Edited: 7/31 2:25am (3 edits total) Edited By: Xammer
	I always liked this passage from Fury as it perfectly summarizes the situation: Aaron Allston, Fury posted: "You no longer have time for me?" "Which you? The mother you used to be, or the interplanetary criminal you've become? I'm not the only one who's changed." "History decides who's a criminal, Jacen." Finally, real irritation began to stir within Caedus, and he rose to the argument. "No, the law decides who's a criminal. History just forgives them, and for reasons as stupid as they are varied. Han Solo was a spice smuggler, an unapologetic lawbreaker. You, even when you were a teenager, were a traitor to the legitimate galactic government, a conspirator planning war and overthrow. The puppet government you put in place may have forgiven you both, but you'll be criminals for the rest of your lives." Her expression graduated to scorn. "Have you ever studied Darth Vader? Clearly, you got your intelligence and your political acumen from your grandfather." He nodded. "There we are in agreement." "So if you believe that Palpatine's rule as Emperor was legitimate, you have to believe that any government, no matter how destructive, is legitimate." Leia practically spat the words out. "Why did we bother taking back Coruscant from the Yuuzhan Vong? By your figuring, they were the legitimate rulers of the galaxy!" Caedus stirred, irritated, but did not rise. "That's not what I said, and don't put words in my mouth. Palpatine worked within the system to gain prominence. That establishes a continuity of government. That's part of the legitimacy. What you did with the Rebels, like what the Yuuzhan Vong did, was come in like an agricultural planetformer, digging up and destroying everything in its path..."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History