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: 7/3 11:26am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	The rebellion was justified because they won. With Palpatine dead and the Empire scattered, they could no longer enforce their laws and thus their laws are moot. So legally, it no longer matters whether they broke the law or not be rebelling because after they won, there is no one to enforce said Imperial law. After all, a law only holds more weight than the paper it's written on if they can enforce it. Otherwise it's just words. 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. Maximillian_Veers, you place a lot of weight on legality and legitimacy, but legality and legitimacy are fleeting. All that "legality and legitimacy" didn't do Palpatine much, considering he's dead. He could flout legality all he wants, but a sizeable group hated him and his "legitimate" Empire and was able to back themselves up with a weapons and a Jedi, and demolished a good portion of his Empire and convinced his Supreme Commander to kill him. Fat lot of good "legality and legitimacy" did him. I would agree with Maximillian_Veers that we avoid the "morality" aspect as viewpoints are hardly objective and often irreconcilable in a academic debate. -----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
CaptainPeabody Registered: Jul '08	Date Posted: 7/3 11:51am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	Maximilian-Veers posted: 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. Well, of course morality is open to interpretation, as are all other systems of laws, ideas, or principles--and as, indeed, is the system of facts and methodology that makes up the physical sciences. But, nevertheless, for something to be "open to interpretation" implies that the thing itself exists, and is not totally subjective. Morality is a system that proceeds from certain ideas and principles (as does any other system) which are then drawn out and applied to specific cases-- and so, as with any other such system, conclusions in specific cases will sometimes differ greatly depending on the person doing the extrapolating. But this does not mean that the system itself is non-existent, or that we cannot say anything about the matter covered by that system at all. Reasoning can be wrong--so can moral reasoning. That does not mean that either all reasoning is moot, and that there is no way we can ever logically deduce or know anything, or that there is no such thing as morality. Virtually all societies throughout time have agreed that taking a life is wrong in some cases--that it is murder. Societies and individuals have sometimes differed over which specific cases or situations constitute murder, and those that do not. But this does not mean that there is no such thing as murder, or that one may kill anyone you like at any time for any reason. In like manner, it is perfectly possible, however difficult, to deduce the correct moral choice in various situations, including difficult moral quandaries such as the ones given above (and the ones given above are not necessarily that difficult), and to construct a system of morality that is more correct than that of, say, Osama Bin Laden--that is, one that more closely corresponds to reality than his. Would you not agree with this? In theory, it is even possible to construct an entire system of correct morality--though it is open to debate whether one such exists. Maximilian-Veers posted: 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. Come now: surely you realize that this is sheer, raving nonsense? If I decided that to bring about the Rapture and Second Coming of Jesus, I had to go out in the street and gun down a hundred people, then surely you would not accept the argument that from my perspective, these actions were correct and righteous, and that my perspective differed from yours, and so you could not judge me? Of course people have different perspectives on what is right and wrong, and different systems of morality--but different systems of morality can be compared and judged according to which one is more correct, by deduction from first principles of morality. A bit off-topic, I'll admit. This is more to the point: Nevertheless, we are not here talking about subtle matters of morality or difficult moral quandaries--we are talking about the basest, barest matters of right and wrong, the simplest and broadest idea of morality possible. And, presumably, you believe in at the very least such a broad system of morality--that is, if I entered your parent's house and killed your father with Sith Lightning, you would rightly consider this action objectively wrong. In like manner, I assume you would believe that Hitler, in murdering millions of Jews, was performing an objectively immoral and wrong act. It is these types of actions that we are discussing when we talk about the "immorality" or "unjustness" of the Galactic Empire: Emperor Palpatine in one day destroyed an entire planet. The worst atrocities of Hitler were done also in some form by Palpatine. If Hitler was in some sense an evil man, then so was Palpatine. If Nazi Germany was an unjust government, than so was Palpatine's Empire. In any event, whether or not you believe in morality, the Star Wars universe does. The Word of George is not open to interpretation... -----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
DarthApocalypse Registered: Apr '07	Date Posted: 7/3 1:39pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	CaptainPeabody posted: 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. The Jedi are no more of a legitimate religious organization that the Sith. The fact they are intertwined with Republic history in no way means their presence is required for a government to be accepted. The thing that is needed most is the law, which Palpatine had and the support of the people, which Palpatine also had. While this support later eroded it doesn't change that fact the government was founded with the consent of the public. CaptainPeabody posted: 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. Plenty of governments have done unjust things. That doesn't automatically make the government illegitmate. Are the United States and British governments no longer legit because of their previous support of slavery (Similiar to Palpatine's enslavement of the Wookies)? Does the fact the the U.S. has tortured people mean that no one should listen to them anymore (Similiar to that happened to Leia)? CaptainPeabody posted: 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). 1. Under that reasoning no Star Wars government is legit, the Old and New Republic's included. 2. The Jedi don't receive legitimacy from the Force. They don't even fully understand it, nor can they comprehend its will. That fact that they use the Force doesn't mean they are qualified to make decisions or lead on its behalf. CaptainPeabody posted: 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). A moral judgment on which side is better means nothing. That's equivalent to a Muslim saying to a Christian "My religion is right and yours is wrong, therefore I should rule." Also, how can the Light Side alone be the Force itself if the Dark Side co-exists alongside it? CaptainPeabody posted: 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. The people might have eventually turned against the Empire. However remember that their are times when people will not be happy with what the government is doing, and their displeasure does not automatically mean the government is now illegal. -----signature----- Don't take life too seriously. Nobody gets out alive.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Havac Title: Lit Mod of War Registered: Sep '05	Date Posted: 7/3 2:46pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	Maximillian-Veers posted: 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. 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. -----signature----- "Is there a captain's hat involved in this?"
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Maximillian-Veers Registered: Apr '05	Date Posted: 7/3 5:06pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	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. -----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
DarthIktomi Registered: May '09	Date Posted: 7/3 5:20pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	But Palpatine IS the Senate.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Maximillian-Veers Registered: Apr '05	Date Posted: 7/3 5:32pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government? - Date Edited: 7/3 5:33pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Maximillian-Veers
	CaptainPeabody posted: But, nevertheless, for something to be "open to interpretation" implies that the thing itself exists, and is not totally subjective. Ontological arguments are such fallacy. Just because I can concieve of a unicorn does not mean that one exists. Equally, because I can concieve of a concept like "absolute morality", that does not mean that such a thing exists in reality. CaptainPeabody posted: Virtually all societies throughout time have agreed that taking a life is wrong in some cases--that it is murder. Likewise, almost every society has differed as to what activity does or does not constitute murder, based on their own subjective and dare I say it, self-centered viewpoint. One could argue that the concept of murder itself is simply the reaction of society to the death of a member of said society which the whole of the society found undesirable. CaptainPeabody posted: In like manner, it is perfectly possible, however difficult, to deduce the correct moral choice in various situations, including difficult moral quandaries such as the ones given above (and the ones given above are not necessarily that difficult), and to construct a system of morality that is more correct than that of, say, Osama Bin Laden--that is, one that more closely corresponds to reality than his. Would you not agree with this? In theory, it is even possible to construct an entire system of correct morality--though it is open to debate whether one such exists. I would disagree that there is an objective, universal morality to which I am more privy than any other. Morality is based upon personal feelings and experiences which are wholely subjective. CaptainPeabody posted: Come now: surely you realize that this is sheer, raving nonsense? If I decided that to bring about the Rapture and Second Coming of Jesus, I had to go out in the street and gun down a hundred people, then surely you would not accept the argument that from my perspective, these actions were correct and righteous, and that my perspective differed from yours, and so you could not judge me? Of course people have different perspectives on what is right and wrong, and different systems of morality--but different systems of morality can be compared and judged according to which one is more correct, by deduction from first principles of morality. The only basis behind my "moral" desire to stop you is my selfish desire for myself and my society to live. I am not privy to any special information which makes me your moral superior. I judge not your morality. I slay you for my survival, and the well being of my society. CaptainPeabody posted: Nevertheless, we are not here talking about subtle matters of morality or difficult moral quandaries--we are talking about the basest, barest matters of right and wrong, the simplest and broadest idea of morality possible. And, presumably, you believe in at the very least such a broad system of morality--that is, if I entered your parent's house and killed your father with Sith Lightning, you would rightly consider this action objectively wrong. I personally would find it wrong, because he is my father. There is nothing objective about my feelings for my father, a person for whom I have a great deal of personal emotional attachment. I do not understand your motivation for slaying my father, but I would likely emotionally assume that you were unjustified until it is proven that you were otherwise. I am, however, open to the idea that perhaps my father has done something so damaging to society that he should perish, because I leave that possibility open for anyone. CaptainPeabody posted: In like manner, I assume you would believe that Hitler, in murdering millions of Jews, was performing an objectively immoral and wrong act. I think Hitler was acting according to whatever moral code he possessed, but was making an idiotic political & economic blunder, and was acting in a fashion I find evil because I consider all men my ally until they give me reason to believe otherwise, and their religious belifs do not enter into that equation until they start committing human sacrifices or some other transgression against the flesh. CaptainPeabody posted: It is these types of actions that we are discussing when we talk about the "immorality" or "unjustness" of the Galactic Empire: Emperor Palpatine in one day destroyed an entire planet. The worst atrocities of Hitler were done also in some form by Palpatine. If Hitler was in some sense an evil man, then so was Palpatine. If Nazi Germany was an unjust government, than so was Palpatine's Empire. I disagree. While the Jewish people were not a discernable threat to the German state, Alderaan was directly aiding and abetting the enemies of the Empire, stockpiling weapons, and organizing a rebellion. For the preservation of the Empire, the threat of Alderaan had to be eliminated. The Death Star was an effective means to eliminate that threat. For Palpatine, the destruction of Alderaan was mere self-preservation. Had Bail & Leia not wanted to see the people of their homeworld wiped out in an instant, they should not have made their homeworld a direct threat to the New Order. War is hell. -----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: 7/3 5:36pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	[quote=Havac 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.[/quote] 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. -----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
Havac Title: Lit Mod of War Registered: Sep '05	Date Posted: 7/3 8:01pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	Now you're letting subjective judgments of "heroism" determine what's legal or not? Palpatine aided and abetted enemies of the Republic to rebel against it in a vast, galaxy-encompassing war. A handful of lone, dissatisfied planets would have created the Clone Wars on their own anyway? Really? What basis have you for your claim? The InterGalactic Banking Clan would have rebelled all on its own? Really? 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? No, they obviously would have up and bombarded Humbarine on their own, 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. "I did it to root out the Republic's enemies and save it" might be Palpatine's defense at trial. It doesn't absolve him of guilt for treason. He led a war effort against the Republic for the purpose of self-aggrandizement. He didn't draw them out and have them arrested like any kind of halfway reasonable sting operation. 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. That argument is the purest nonsense. Palpatine is, by any definition, guilty of treason. Period. You can argue it was moral, or heroic treason, if you like. After all, it's all subjective! I'd suggest you gain some understanding of the law before you insist committing treason isn't illegal because you can make up counterfactual "heroic" motives which purport, but fail to, justify it. Morality might be subjective (doubtful, but some people buy into the nonsense and I don't feel like arguing it at the moment), but law is not. "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. -----signature----- "Is there a captain's hat involved in this?"
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
GrandAdmiralJello Title: Emperor • EUC • JCC Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 7/4 2:36am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government? - Date Edited: 7/4 2:42am (3 edits total) Edited By: GrandAdmiralJello
	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. -----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: 7/4 8:50am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government? - Date Edited: 7/4 8:54am (1 edits total) Edited By: Jovieve
	sigh Palpatine, as a Dark Lord, has abilities normal beings do not. He brought weaker-minded members of the Senate under his control due to his mental abilities. In any situation, that is unethical and coercive and in a Republic, especially if done by a leading political member, highly illegal. Palpatine also played a central role in aiding the Trade Federation in a blockage of Naboo, he was clearly calling the shots and advising his underlings. The blockade - without the Queen's signing an agreement - was illegal. He sent assassin Darth Maul to Naboo to kill the representatives of the Chancellor, ordered the murders of members of the Naboo government, he ordered underling Tyrannus to Kamino to order - without the approval of the Senate - an army. He coerced through threats and mental control underlings and Trade people to start a war. All highly illegal. Basically Palpatine is a mob boss, who orders murders, corrupts and threatens politicians and leading trade members, starts conflicts, attempts to destabilize governments to create an environment to stage a coup. All highly illegal and treasonous. Now, I don't know about job descriptions in GFFA, but I'm pretty sure the job description of Chancellor of a free society would not include such behaviors and actions on ANYone's curricula vitae. Knowing the truth of the man, Palpatine wouldn't have been elected to the post of womp-rat catcher on Tattooine, much less Senator of Naboo or Chancellor of the Republic. So, Palpatine's empire was forged by illegal and treasonous means and not in any way a legitimate government. In regards to the idea that he should have been tried and convicted before we can claim his government was illegal is beside the point (plus how would one "prove" mental control?). The characters of GFFA knew but couldn't prove who was behind all of it, but they were getting there, but we the audience know Palpatine's actions and thus know his empire wasn't legitimate. -----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
RogueWompRat Registered: Feb '03	Date Posted: 7/4 9:49am Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government? - Date Edited: 7/4 7:00pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Havac
	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. Are you joking? Seriously? Because you always take this line without fail in these kind of debates and I can't tell if you're putting us on or if you're really no who completely missed the point of the movies that these message boards are based on. -----signature----- "the Force is between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere..."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
GrandAdmiralJello Title: Emperor • EUC • JCC Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 7/4 1:56pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government? - Date Edited: 7/4 1:57pm (1 edits total) Edited By: GrandAdmiralJello
	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. Jovieve: Palpatine, as a Dark Lord, has abilities normal beings do not. He brought weaker-minded members of the Senate under his control due to his mental abilities. Citation? Further, prove to me at which point a competent judicial body ruled this to be the case after evidenciary hearings where this was established to impeach the credibility and legitimacy of His Imperial Majesty's government--or the Imperial State, for that matter, since the thread title has trouble distinguishing between the two. In any situation, that is unethical and coercive and in a Republic, especially if done by a leading political member, highly illegal. Jedi persuasion, of course, is entirely ethical and legal--as is their defiance of the Senate. Got it. These claims aside, the legitimacy of the Empire stands until it has been found not to. This has not happened and cannot happen since the Empire was overthrown by a counterrevolutionary movement. Palpatine also played a central role in aiding the Trade Federation in a blockage of Naboo, he was clearly calling the shots and advising his underlings. The blockade - without the Queen's signing an agreement - was illegal. No, their blockade is effectively legal--see that modified quotation there?--it is merely the occupation that needed to be legitimized. The Emperor was never found to be in collaboration with the Trade Federation, though, so I don't see your point in mentioning it. So, Palpatine's empire was forged by illegal and treasonous means and not in any way a legitimate government. In regards to the idea that he should have been tried and convicted before we can claim his government was illegal is beside the point (plus how would one "prove" mental control?). Yes, the law is beside the point. After all, the term legitimacy surely does not have lex, legis as a root--except wait, it does. Whoops. Care to try that one again? The characters of GFFA knew but couldn't prove who was behind all of it, but they were getting there, but we the audience know Palpatine's actions and thus know his empire wasn't legitimate. We know nothing of the sort. The law does not work that way. You cannot bring OOU information to settle an IU question. This is intellectually sloppy and grossly inappropriate. -----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
MistrX Registered: Jun '06	Date Posted: 7/4 2:10pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	GrandAdmiralJello posted: We know nothing of the sort. The law does not work that way. You cannot bring OOU information to settle an IU question. This is intellectually sloppy and grossly inappropriate. Actually, we do know. But that's your point, isn't it? We know. Us, the OOU real world whose information has no direct influence on the IU (other than what authors decide to add). The question may be if an IU source found irrefutable evidence of Palpatine's activities, would the Empire itself be delegitimized? I don't necessarily think so. Yes, Palpatine did manufacture many of the situations and events that put the galaxy into the position it was in at the end of Episode III and he did perform many illegal actions to get into the position he himself reached. With that, though, he was still legally elected into his position, given broader powers approved by that institutions legitimate governing body, and upon declaration of a transition of that government was approved by the same governing body. Technically, I think it is legitimate. -----signature----- We are well and truly forked
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
GrandAdmiralJello Title: Emperor • EUC • JCC Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 7/4 2:39pm Subject: So the Empire was a legitimate government?
	We know his actions, but we don't know that it's illegitimate--and that's because it isn't. Certainly, some NR court could--and probably has--found the Empire to be illegitimate ex post facto, but that's not important to us. As you note, the Empire was lawfully constituted by the governing body of the Republic. -----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