The Great Flaw of Anarchism [by Prince Jonathan]

  Anarchism is, in its most fundamental concepts, entirely correct. The structure and concept of the State, as it is known today, is nothing more than a vast mechanism for tyranny. It takes away freedom, harms the common good, and commits acts of unjustified violence simply by existing; all of which it attempts to justify using elaborate political theories with deeply flawed foundations. Edan is not statist. I am not statist. To be otherwise is to be fooled. All this I believe and admit freely, yet I am still not an Anarchist. Indeed, both I and the Kingdom are very strongly anti-anarchy. And how, you ask, is this possible? Is that not a paradoxical position? Why do we oppose both the State and its absence?
  Because we recognize the great flaw of Anarchism. We see that it has developed from its perfectly rational basic principles into a greater philosophy that is largely false. Anarchists do not just wish to abolish the State, they wish to abolish all political action, all authority, and the entirety of the social sphere except for economics and the family, and some of them even the latter. This is the absolute height of foolishness, and Edan thus rejects Anarchism, as I shall now explain.
  Man is, as a very wise man once observed, a political animal, and this truth cannot be denied. Throughout all the history of all the world, government and political association has developed amongst civilized men. Furthermore, contrary to the common belief of Anarchism, it has largely done so in a non-aggressive way. After the gradual collapse of the Roman Empire, there was no government in France, Italy, Spain, or Western Germany. This meant that the only people with power in those places were the land owners, and the only material order their employment of tenant workers. Over time, these landowners, these counts and dukes, made deals amongst themselves, refined their feudal (that is, contractual) relationship with their tenants, and appointed some of their number as kings. Although violence and coercion were certainly involved in some times and places, the origin of government in Western Europe was accomplished through nothing more than the ownership of property, which I highly doubt any true anarchist will criticize. Similar origins may be found for much of the government of the ancient world, though, again, coercion is not completely absent from history.
  And, once more contrary to the typical beliefs of libertarians and anarchists, Anarchism has also been found throughout history. Far from being the first authentically new political development in three thousand years, absolute individual freedom with no form of government or authority has been seen in many different times and places. We find examples in the Judges period of Israel, Pre-Islamic Arabia, and Pre-Cromwellian Ireland, to name just a few. It is not necessary here to rely solely on those societies incapable of developing government; anarchy has existed in the world through the Age of Exploration. Indeed, considering the nations that evolved in Southern Africa and Polynesia, it could be argued that even the most technologically primitive societies are capable of forming governments, though most of them abstain. What is interesting here is that all examples of anarchy found historically, no matter what their culture, religion, or level of technology, share a few basic traits: continuous, bloody warfare, the normalization of atrocities, and a lack of any meaningful development in technology or art. Every time it as been implemented, anarchy has had a terrifyingly negative impact on the civilizations it affected. Even the most stable and moral examples, such as Pre-Cromwellian Ireland, were plagued by war and violence.
  Now, these facts alone would not be enough to condone statism. The ends do not justify the means; we cannot use tyranny and violence to end tyranny and violence. It is, as the majority of anarchists observe, utterly irrational. However, it is more than possible to form governments and establish the rule of law without recourse to coercion. A state-like order can be created in a completely permissible way, so why should anarchy be permitted to survive? If a truly lawless condition leads to such horrid things, why do we not agree to create law?
  So we see that Anarchism is disproved by history, but it is not even necessary to resort to that approach. Reason can also be used to show its flaws, and to demonstrate that a moral society is neither anarchy nor the State, but rather a proper, feudal government.
  It is natural for people to turn a blind eye to the errors in their own position. That is simple human nature, and it cannot be totally avoided, only fought. Anarchism, however, suffers from a general naïveté in excess even of that. Possible abuses of its systems and flaws in its concept of legality are ignored utterly, or supposedly defeated with the argument that market forces will eventually lead to their destruction. Even the most legitimate concerns are given no thought, as a rule.
  For example, let us say that there is a particular factory that produces car frames, and, in order to cut costs and run more efficiently, they switch from their existing chrome-coating method to one involving a much more volatile compound. The run-off and pollution from this compound quickly spreads off the lot of property that the factory is built upon, and begins to poison the water supply of a neighbouring residential district. The factory owner has harmed the health of many other people, so is he accountable to pay damages and switch back to the older, safer method? How much money should he pay out? How is that determined? Suppose the people in the district hire one security company to force him to pay out a large sum of money to them, but he claims that he owes much less, and hires a rival company to defend himself. Or suppose that he even claims that he isn't responsible at all. What happens next? Who determines which side is right? If the side that is wrong wins, who can step in to fix it?
  As another problem, is airspace property? Can sections of the sky and upper atmosphere be claimed, bought, and sold? It's an interesting question when there is no central law regulating it, but it is not the problem here. The problem is what happens when there is a dispute. If a road-owning company claims that it owns the air above its property up to the limit of the atmosphere, and a air-liner company holds that airspace cannot be owned because it cannot be worked, who wins the dispute over the first company charging tolls on passing planes? Let's say that the air company refuses to pay the demanded tolls, so the road-owners call in a private security company that agrees with their claims to force the matter, and then the air company calls in their own security that agrees with them. If negotiations fail, a shooting war will result. This is something of an extreme example, but it is entirely possible, and does a good job of illustrating this sort of problem. In a state of true anarchy, serious problems arise because of a lack of authority. Does this not mean that, according to the very laws of success and failure that Anarchism itself upholds as its unique practical advantage, authority will inevitably result? Is it not in the common interest of everyone to not just agree on a standard convention for such matters, but also create some way of solving similar difficulties in the future? And since this authority is so intimately linked to defence and enforcement, doesn't it make sense that it, the police, and the military should be a united organization? We find here the genesis of good government, and, indeed, of all government.
   And so we can see that Anarchism is neither foolish nor evil, but the belief that it can survive for more than a few generations without descending into violence and disruption is most certainly the former. Anarchists are correct in observing that the way things are today is critically flawed, but they fail to see the flaws in their own ideas again and again. Ultimately, they are, as a movement, over-idealistic. Even if they do not consciously realize it, their system is completely reliant on the total or almost-total eradication of human stupidity, selfishness, and disputes.
  In Edan, however, we recognize that such a utopian event is impossible. So we reject the State, then reject Anarchism, and finally establish ourselves to be a voluntary government. We seek to create the authority, stability, and public beneficence of a well-run State, while still maintaining the proper morality and rationality at the heart of Anarchism. Though this may be difficult, it is still worth striving after; and it is an ideal that we will not abandon for as long as the Kingdom survives.

"Reactionary" is a Poor Choice of Word [by HRH Jonathan]

There are many words for the movement I tend to refer to as, "Traditionalism." For any group so fragmented and with so many distinct points of origin, this is inevitable; but the number of names for Traditionalism exceeds what even those facts would lead one to expect. Social Conservatism, Traditionalism, Reactionism, Counter-Revolutionism, and Anarcho-Imperialism are all names I've seen applied regularly, but in this brief article, I shall discuss only the third one.

     It is becoming increasingly common for Traditionalists to call themselves, "Reactionaries," that is, followers of Reactionism. This is especially true amongst new converts to our fold, who have gone so far as to take up the name, "Neo-Reactionary," seeing themselves as a new flowering of a concept almost entirely effaced after the last fall of the French Monarchy. These Neo-Reactionaries have formed a rough internet alliance of respectable orthodoxy, though they often have weak communications with the rest of the Traditionalist web. They are laudably pursuing the truth, but today, I have one, seemingly-small criticism to level against them.
     I don't like their name.
     A very common topic in the writings of my father and I is that words have power, and also that their meanings are not always obvious to those who use them. These truths are especially applicable to the term, "Reactionary." A Reactionary is, rather obviously, someone who reacts. Someone who pushes back. Someone only interested in the status quō, the way things stood. Reactionism is, by necessity, defined in terms of its enemies and their choices. Regardless of what its followers actually do, the name conjures up images of people who do not think about the future, or care about what is right, or consider their enemies' positions; but are concerned only with the comfortable past. In just the same way as many have gone astray by referring to, "political science," instead of, "political philosophy," those who call themselves, "Reactionary," are unwittingly defining themselves as everything that is actually wrong with Tradition, and separating themselves from what is good

     Of course, the same problem may be found, with less strength, in the word, "Traditionalism," but I do like this term a good deal more. It is a good catch-all term, encompassing a large number of views; it is already established and well-known; and it is not nearly so bad as the topic of this article. In the end, however, there is not a truly good name for those who desire to restore Western Civilization to its full splendour. At least, not unless you count 'Edanian'.

Choosing Illusions

  One of the most chilling concepts in theology is the idea that we choose Hell: the idea is that at the time of judgement everyone is presented with heaven, part of which is a clear, perfect view of reality, including the reality of ourselves. The damned are the ones who decide not to look, who reject reality for lies because reality is too much for them. The damned choose to be damned because, to them, eternal torment is preferable to the truth.
  Perhaps most people participating in modern politics are likewise rejecting reality for illusion.
  I have expressed my views on Communism elsewhere. It seems obvious to me that the various people and groups that still adhere to and promote Communism do so out of improper motives. They are, in the end, rejecting reality.
  Are the members of Democracies that much better at recognizing reality? The slide of Democracy to collapse is so well known and understood that some of America's founders opposed Democracy and, when they were overruled by the democratic process, warned the nation of the danger. The French First Republic was notable for the Reign of Terror, a bloodbath that presaged the horrors of the 20th Century, and for lasting barely over a decade before being transformed into an empire that started the first global war and transformed civilians and such into 'acceptable strategic targets' of war. The French Second Republic lasted only about three and a half years but was still riddled with riots, uprisings, and death and, again, collapsed into a bellicose empire. The French Third Republic fell to invasion and the French Fourth Republic collapsed under its own weight. The French are on their Fifth Republic, so far, and still cling to the idea that the concepts that created the Terror, the Napoleonic Wars, are important to France being a great nation....
  From France to Germany, the USA to the UK the rise of democracy has seen the decline of nations and, much more importantly, decline for the citizens of those nations. I am not discussing increases in material goods, I mean the legal rights and moral health of people. Considering the level or unrest visible in these nations, I do not think greater wealth replaces less freedom and degraded public morals. From the rise of nationalist parties in Europe to movements such as Occupy and the Tea Party in the USA people demonstrate that they know they are losing ground but continue to return to Democracy again and again.
  Why?
  Because, in the end, Democracy is a comforting illusion. The spectacle of 'the electoral process' catches the eye; the platitudes of politicians and pundits engage the ear; the ritual of voting lulls the mind; the continual, meaningless bickering between interchangeable empty suits numbs the spirit. The flashy pomp and weightless rhetoric of 'politics' is so ubiquitous that people become sick of 'hearing about politics' and tune it out without realizing that is the goal - apathy. Yet even those who want to change, want to make an impact stick to the same pattern, use the same formulas, try to 'engage voters' and 'frame the narrative' and 'create a grassroots movement' and on, and on, and on... just like the people they wish to replace for being ineffectual (at best) or corrosive (as usual). They don't realize that they are just slapping a new coat of paint on the same Potemkin village.
  The question that strikes at the core of modern Democracies isn't 'which party should I vote for?' it is 'why is it that, no matter who is in power, things never get better?'
  Sure, this constituency might get that tax increase/break they wanted, and that group might get the program increase/cut they spent sixty million euros lobbying for, but overall things still got worse; the economy is still booming and busting with each boom a little lower at apogee and each bust a little lower at perigee; the overall burden f taxes, fees, fines, and such still creeps up each year, somehow; the burden of laws and regulations makes it harder and harder to get anything really done and done well; but once the 'electoral process' parade begins most people get in line for the ritual of casting a vote.
  The Western culture really hammers us all with the idea that political systems boil down to "Democracy vs. various types of tyranny" and has done so for over a Century. The replacement of centuries-old, stable Monarchies with Democracies was of key importance to Western Democracies after WWI and WWII and we are still reaping the fruits of these changes in the Balkans and the Middle East. But the most stable nations in the Middle East are still monarchies; Lichtenstein is a beacon of success in Europe (and the citizens routinely vote down attempts to introduce more democracy to their nation), and it seems that as the Constitutional Monarchies of Europe degrade the powers of their monarchs their nation's see their own wealth and influence degrade as well. Yet, still, Democracy is idolized.
  Certainly, some few see the issues with Democracy and go too far, rejecting all government as inherently bad, but this is just another form of accepting the illusion that there is either Democracy or nothing worthwhile.
  So, what do we do?
  Start pointing at the 'electoral process' and laughing. Long and loud. Start asking the real questions, such as,
 'But what was the real meaning of the speech? Not the signals, not the opposition to another party - the real, inherent meaning?'
 'When did your life get better because of Democracy?'
  'If your duty conflicts with Democracy, what would win?"
  And be a proud monarchist!

Authentic Social Justice: the Core of Edan

  ">Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority"

Thus begins the catechism's section on Social Justice. What does it really mean? Well, when society allows justice to be done, you have social Justice - obviously. Social justice is part and parcel of both the common man and of leaders.
  Notice what it does not  say, however - it does not say that leaders or the common man must give justice to people or groups. It says that society (meaning the common men and leaders) are to allow people or groups to obtain what is their due. 
  In other words Social Justice is not the giving of things to people by government, it is the conditions of society that allow justice to be gained.

  The Catechism goes on to say,

"Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. "

  More briefly 'human rights are granted by God, not society, and the moral legitimacy of any worldly authority or society is based upon recognizing and supporting these rights'.  Or, 'any society or authority that denies the inherent, God-given rights of Man is not legitimate'.
  So governments, whatever their nature, must support the inherent rights of its people or it will have no legitimacy and and society that flaunts these rights is also illegitimate. This is key because it means that a core contention of Democracy, that legitimacy of society and authority is derived from the will of the people, i.e., the opinions of a majority of voters, is false. If 50.1% of voters support the murder of innocents that does not make the murder of innocents acceptable, it makes the society that supports such voters illegitimate.
  
  Later the catechism states,

"Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity."

Or 'the inherent rights of all men are the same'. The peasant has the same chance of heaven as the cardinal; the stable boy has as much right to justice as the prince.

  It continues,

"On coming into the world, man is not equipped with everything he needs for developing his bodily and spiritual life. He needs others. Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution of wealth. The "talents" are not distributed equally...  ...These differences belong to God's plan, who wills that each receive what he needs from others, and that those endowed with particular "talents" share the benefits with those who need them. These differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice generosity, kindness, and sharing of goods; they foster the mutual enrichment of cultures"

  More shortly, 'equality of inherent rights does not mean equality in all ways; people are tall and short, smart and dumb, skilled speakers and reticent, leaders and followers. These differences are part of God's plan and are good for all involved'. So while the peasant has the same chance of heaven as the cardinal, the cardinal has gifts and authority the peasant does not. Likewise, while the stable boy has the same right to justice as the prince, the prince has duties and obligations the stable boy never will. And this is not just acceptable, it is good.

  The Catechism then warns us that,

">There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women...."

  In this the Catechism is speaking of when societies and leaders have or implement systems that impose sinful inequalities upon people. It continues with,

"...Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions."

  Remember how beginning of this piece we pointed out that,

"t says that society (meaning the common men and leaders) are to allow people or groups to obtain what is their due."

  This portion tells us that when society actively prevents people or groups from obtaining what is their due it is sinful.

  The Catechism concludes its section on Social Justice with,

" Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a business, solidarity among nations and peoples. International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order; world peace depends in part upon this."

  Or, 'love of neighbor and charity among and between people is the solution to social injustice'.

  So the central ideas of Social Justice are quite clear; be just and allow others to obtain justice; love your neighbor and be charitable.

  But are their guidelines for rulers and leaders as to the nuts and bolts of implementing this?

  The Catechism focuses heavily on Solidarity. Solidarity has two meanings; the earning of a livelihood through work and the friendship and social charity between all people in a society. At its heart Solidarity is the rejection of class as a dividing force between people. The poor are to show solidarity with everyone, not just the poor. The rich are to show solidarity with everyone, not just the rich. Emploers, workers, farmers, artisans, men, women, etc. - all are part of society. By rejecting class as a dividing factor it is also inherently a rejection of individualism as a defining element of humanity. While we are all individuals and have individual needs, etc. no one is ever alone and just as society is an outgrowth of the family no one in a society is capable of being truly apart from that society just as no man can ever not have a mother.
  Solidarity is also much more spiritual and emotional rather than material. The goal of Solidarity isn't wealth, the goal is justice. Granted, justice often leads to increased wealth....
  Yet Solidarity is not collectivist! As we read above, justice is about the individual person; individuals have God-given natural rights, not societies or governments. In the end Solidarity is an explicit rejection of such Liberal concepts such as Communism and Libertarianism - both collectivism and material individualism are rejected as false and, thus, unjust.

  Another key element of a just society is Subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is the principle that,

""a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good." 

  Or as the OED states,

"The principle that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate, local level."

   More simply, 'as local and personal as possible'. There are many reasons for thus ranging from simple efficiency (how can a distant administrator have a clearer idea?) and moral (rights are individual, not collective, so avoid the collective). Again, this is a direct rejection of collectivism and individualism; the collective is to be avoided as much as possible, but there are times when the collective is the only answer.

  The next core element is Private Property. The Catechism tells us that,

"In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits. The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. the appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men."

  Or, 'men have a right to private property'. Indeed, private property is an element of dignity and freedom and part of Solidarity. But the Catechism also warns us,

"The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. the universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.
  In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself. The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor. "

  Another reminder that we are part of a family and that we owe all good to God and, thus, we owe solidarity to our neighbors. Note as well that yet again there is an explicit rejection of collectivism ('the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise') and individualism (' legitimate goods he... ... owns not... exclusive to himself but common to others...'). Indeed, we are morally obligated to make our property fruitful because fruitfulness helps others. If we are 'middlemen' then we must be as efficient as possible so that we do not waste what could be used charitably. The Catechism later states,

"Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good"

Tied with the obligation to respect the right to private property this means that governments have the right to regulate, say, workplace safety, waste disposal and pollution, etc. to ensure the common good. So while private property is a right, it is not an absolute right. Indeed,

"Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment: thus, deliberate retention of goods lent or of objects lost; business fraud; paying unjust wages; forcing up prices by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another.
The following are also morally illicit: speculation in which one contrives to manipulate the price of goods artificially in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; corruption in which one influences the judgment of those who must make decisions according to law; appropriation and use for private purposes of the common goods of an enterprise; work poorly done; tax evasion; forgery of checks and invoices; excessive expenses and waste. Willfully damaging private or public property is contrary to the moral law and requires reparation."

  Note how this states that waste, excessive expense, and willfully damaging your own property is immoral.  Also, the inescapable conclusion is that to be moral we must reject not just collectivism and individualism but also Communism/Socialism and laissez-faire Capitalism. Communism rejects the idea of private property, denying people freedom, security, and the option for their own justice. Socialism rejects subsidiarity and demands central planning, dehumanizing the person. Laissez-faire Capitalism rejects Solidarity and focuses on profits instead of people. The inherent collectivism of Communism and Socialism (which rejects individual rights and justice) is matched by the inherent individualism of Capitalism (which rejects legitimate authority and the common good. Thus, Edan embraces Distributism, which is no more than the consolidation of Catholic social justice.

  

  Here are the core ideas of Edan:

1) All citizens have a right to private property, a right to just compensation for their goods and services, and a right to enter into contracts, including employment contracts, of their own free will

2) Ownership of private property and work are both inherently good for the individual and for society. 'Work' includes physical, artistic, intellectual, and spiritual work.

3) The government has the authority to regulate private property and business for the common good.

4) Decisions should be made as far 'down' the hierarchy of authority as possible.

5) Co-operatives and guilds are preferred to unions and corporations. 

6) Government is for leadership, not charity.

Aristocracy and Society, part 2

As discussed in part I, equality of people means that all people are equal in their basic human rights; no more. In other areas people vary, often widely, in areas of physical and mental ability. This results, naturally and justly, into hierarchies among men in any group, institution or society.
When this tendency toward hierarchy is understood for what it is, the natural response of all people to differences in ability, it is no more or less than part of culture and society. In several cultures this has even been part of an attempt to create a meritocracy where there were incentives for certain abilities and checks on others, or on inabilities,with the goal of quantifying and controlling hierarchies in society for the greater good of all. The traditional Chinese civil service, for example, was based upon a series of formal exams so that the intelligent and well-educated would be promoted to positions of influence and even power.
Most of these attempts at a meritocracy fail over time, however, or reveal some very interesting facts about human nature. For example, the Chinese civil service became a bed of corruption were posts were bought and sold. The armies of Napoleon were based upon meritocracy – promotion and leadership were based upon proven ability to fight, to lead and a demonstrated grasp of tactics and strategy. Napoleon's goal was to have leaders selected based upon merit and proven success. In the end, however, all of his meritocratically-chosen marshals were defeated by the Duke of Wellington, a man who had literally purchased most of his promotions.
As much as Western democracies may speak of all people being equal they are, in the end, all attempts at meritocracies. What are political campaigns but attempts to demonstrate that a particular candidate is better-suited to lead than all others? Many democracies have accepted, if unwritten, 'minimum standards' for political leaders as far as where they were educated, careers before entering politics, hobbies, etc. This forms an unacknowledged aristocracy within democracies, an aristocracy of education and background, of outlook and hobbies.
While the level of ability between a formal and informal aristocracy may be similar, these unacknowledged aristocracies are inferior to recognized aristocracies for three reasons; training, accountability, and responsibility. In a formal aristocratic class, members are aware from a very early age that they are expected to be not just privileged but also responsible, responsible to society as a whole to lead politically, socially and morally. This responsibility is accompanied by accountability; all levels of society know what is expected of the aristocracy, so failure to live up to cultural expectations strikes directly at the very elite status of the aristocrat. Indeed, it can be argued that the decline of aristocratic elites in Europe was tied to a chronic failure to be moral and ethical exemplars as well as a failure to lead politically. Naturally, the combination of responsibility and accountability leads to a lifetime of training for the role of being a leader and an example.
In contrast, the informal aristocracies of the modern democracies haven't these same expectations and there for lack the lifetime of preparation for leadership.
As mentioned before, no system is perfect, and aristocracies are prone to decline and corruption in the absence of a strong moral code. Of course, we have seen that democracies are more prone to this same decline and seem to have a tendency to reject the sorts of moral codes that would prevent this decline and/or lead to periodic renewal of aristocratic virtues.
But this is, we believe, why micronations tend to adopt aristocracies; an acknowledgement of not just Man's need for hierarchy, but an understanding that a formal leadership class is more likely to provide and maintain a strong ethical structure for society as a whole as well as give more stable long-term leadership than other systems. But such groups must be aware that the inescapable consequences of being an aristocrat are increased responsibilities and accountability.

Monarchy and Democracy

[From the King and the Crown Prince]
There may be some wondering amongst the readers, critics, and potential citizens of Edan, why are we a monarchy? From what I have seen elsewhere there seem to be two primary chains of thought. 1: "Don't you know that democracies are better and more modern?", and 2: "Don't the people have more freedom and liberty in a democracy?". I shall approach each argument with what knowledge and common sense dictate to be true but that the modern world seems to have forgotten or ignored.

The first is an interesting and unique dilemma brought about due to two rather recent strains of thought. American Exceptionalism is founded upon the conceit that America is inherently better than any other nation before or after; that from its very inception America has surpassed all other countries in every way. Therefore, since America is Democratic (as that word is used in modern Western settings) democracy is better. The Enlightenment concepts of the French Revolution are little different. Reading the writers of and defenders of Enlightenment thought reveals that, in the end, the modern support of democracy flows like this,

“Why does the Enlightenment embrace democracy”
“Because democracy is a better form of government that any other form”
“And how do we know democracy is the best form of government?”
“Because it is embraced by the Enlightenment”

Of course, the thinking of the Enlightenment is full of tautologies, but this may be the most egregious.

Common sense, history and current events tell us that democracy is not the panacea it is claimed to be. A light sampling of these pro-democracy arguments include "A king will just become a despot.", "Democracies are closer to the people", or "Kings aren't as good at ruling as democracy". Each of these are easily shown to be no more than sloganeering. A king may be a tyrant, and the reign of terror may last as long as he lives, but a king may also be just, wise, and great. In a democracy, there is always another corrupt politician, and the power of every individual is lowered as far as possible (in the modern system). So while there may be tyrants in the progression of a kingdom, there will always be corruption in a democracy, and while you may have a great king create a golden age, a golden age cannot be created by one good politician. The transition of various modern nations from Monarchies to Democracies has not resulted in reinvigorated nations that are more ambitious, more resolute, and more decisive. Instead Western Democracies are sinking into indecision, bureaucratic paralysis, and cultural ennui. Human nature, the Free Rider Problem, the Tragedy of the Commons; all tell us that the nature of democracies and temporary power will result in corruption, sloth, and indecision. Monarchies, on the other hand, avoid the majority of these problems because power rests in people who may not melt into a faceless crowd.

And is a near-endless parade of professional and semi-professional politicians and their bureaucratic assistants 'closer to the people'? When was the last time you or any normal person you know spoke with a president? Or a senator? Or a governor? Or a mayor? A monarchy and aristocracy can obviously be detached, but democracies can be more so. Conversely, an aristocracy and be directly connected to the people because of its very nature, as can a democracy. Clearly, democracy and monarchy face at least very similar challenges in this area.

The last argument brought up as a sample is one that I find interesting. How is a democratic government better at governing than a monarchical one? It may be true that a pure, absolute, direct monarchy could be very bad at governing, but when we refer to "Monarchy" we mean 'constitutional monarchy with an attendant aristocracy'. At the micro level, local aristocrats are better than mayors and such because they are 'in office' for life and depend upon good governance for their position, wealth, and standing. They are in power their whole lives, allowing them to carry out long plans, and continue to adapt when they go wrong. They know the people as well as an elected official might, and must face that their future generations will inherit any issues they leave behind. At the macro level, dukes, counts, and other nobles are much better than governors at the state/province level, for similar reasons. Unless they are removed from office with the permission and approval of the church, they will occupy their position for their entire life, no matter what politics says or does. They can carry out cohesive long-term plans, goals, and reforms with no threat of being removed from office by corruption or temporary backlash, and they don't need to bend over backwards to bring about politically motivated changes. And because the position is hereditary, they have been raised for it, trained from birth to take over for their father, a tremendous advantage in every way.

In opposition stand temporarily elected politicians and appointed bureaucrats. Even if they do well, they rarely remain in office for more than 10 years, they must set political goals and listen to parties, and can't risk the slightest uproar in any group, and may never have had any experience with powerful positions before their election. Most of all, the advantages of a monarchy are expressed in the monarch himself. The greatest advantage possible within any system of government is to have a supreme executive who is not a politician, who does not have to deal with elections, parties, or agendas unless he wants to, or thinks he needs to. A king is free to lead, something that any executive elected official is most certainly not. Combined with the heredity of the position, it is certain that monarchies are superior in stability and adaptability.

And now onto the second, arguably more important question. Aren't democracies, as has been repeated so many times, a step forward in freedom and basic rights? After all, they say, a government ruled by the people is going to be much better for the people than a government ruled by a hereditary position. But there are a few things that should be remembered in this discussion. Democracy is not a governance by the People, it is a governance by the Majority, whoever they may be. What if the majority is, for example, the communist party? Or maybe some sort of National Socialist party? In a monarchy a sway of decadence may do slightly more damage than in a democracy, but it will be unaffected by any mass immorality that may come about from a cult of personality or a seductive ideal. And how are democracies a step forward? Democracy is an old idea, from longer in the past than the birth of Christ, so why is it that all these revolutions of "Human Rights" didn't happen until now? And if monarchy is 'stultifying' or 'repressive' why is it that the great Enlightenment thinkers that oppose monarchy all flourished and wrote during the era of the monarchy while their modern counterparts, licing in democracies, do no more than echo the past? And why is it that, according to these people, monarchies limited freedom? The answer to all three of these questions is simple; democracies are weak. What happens if fools are the majority? Or evil people? What about the influence of wealth upon elections? In a monarchy, the government may become discouraged as it tries to help the people, or in a worst case scenario gets fed up and withdraws. But in a democracy the government changes to match these unfortunate trends. Thus in the modern world, despite the immorality and the slow death of civilization, the unborn are not considered to be alive, homosexual marriage is considered a right, something for nothing is considered moral, and marriage is considered to be temporary. Not just by corrupted or mistaken citizens, but by the governments themselves.

Now there is another side to this coin - democracy does have it's uses and advantages. The common man really does need a voice, lest he be exploited. The ability to give everyone an undeniable say in his rule makes a tremendous difference in the treatment of those in the lower walks of life. But a pure democracy will always go wrong, they always have. So while Edan is a monarchy, the legislature is elected, from both the nobles and the people. And now we come to another dark side of this discussion, if democracy has proven inferior in all these things, isn't monarchy better? If you agree with any of the statements above, must a monarchy be supported? Edan is not a monarchy because we don't like democracy, but because we know that monarchies are better.

Egalitarian or Leaderless?

A recent study from the Stanford University purports to show something that it may not, in fact, show. This study, which was actually a computer simulation, was an attempt to discover why the modern world is composed overwhelmingly by 'stratified' societies rather than by 'egalitarian' societies.
The inherent biases of the researchers are prominently on display ranging from the blunt statement that any social structure that is not 'egalitarian' is selfish and wrong to the further statement by the lead researcher that,

"Inequalities in socioeconomic status are increasing sharply around the world. Understanding the causes and consequences of inequality and how to reduce it is one of the central challenges of our time."

While the King and his government abhor poverty, is 'reducing inequalities in socioeconomic status' truly "one of the central challenges of our time"? In the face of global economic instability, breakdowns in diplomatic relations, the continuance of Communist and Islamic terrorism, the growth in political power of criminal cartels, the surge in piracy, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian violence, the attempts to undermine key elements of societal stability, and the impending demographic crunch I think there are many more pressing concerns to face first.
Getting back to the study, we find within the introduction that there is an unproven assumption that hunter-gatherer societies were inherently egalitarian with no social structure at all. Of course, anthropological research of historical and existing hunter-gatherer societies find that most do, indeed, have some level of social structure. Interestingly, hunter-gatherer societies were (and are) incredibly violent with between 15% and 50% of all deaths being caused by murder or tribal warfare. There is some speculation that the less social structure there is, the more violent such societies were and are. While the editors of the Wikipedia entry on hunter-gatherers try to soften this picture of constant violence by arguing that the battles were prompted by 'grudges' rather than by a 'desire for resources' this just indicates that emotion ruled the killers.
The study ran a number of simulations with a number of variables to compare their models of egalitarian and stratified societies and they admit they were surprised by the results. If you dig through the numbers you find that egalitarian societies were much more stable than stratified societies - assuming, however, that there were no changes in the harvest or food yield year-to-year, women had a very narrow range of fertility, the only changes in population were natural birth and natural death (i.e., no violence at all, nor any accidents), etc. In other words, in Utopia egalitarian societies are more stable than stratified ones. By a rather narrow margin.
Interestingly enough, the model showed that stratified societies handled emergencies and crises much better, were stable over a much wider range of environmental and social factors, and did much better in any conditions approaching those of reality. An interesting takeway was that stratified societies received solid benefits from storing food while egalitarian societies didn't.

In the end this was, once again, a computer model founded upon the assumptions and biases of the researchers. But even within those parameters it shows that there are reasons that social structures exist; to add stability and to reduce violence. There is another reason,as well - leadership. Leaders do, indeed, place the welfare of their people over their own. They maintain a vision and a plan that stretches beyond the current crisis to prepare society for the next emergency, too.
We must also remember that acknowledging the utility and even the justice of social classes does not mean that nobles are 'better' than others, or that the poor are poor because they 'deserve to be poor'; all men and women are equal in their basic rights and all are capable of Heaven. Indeed, a noblle has more duties and responsibilities and will answer to God for failing to meet them! The goal of all Edanians, especially the leaders of the Kingdom, is to build a nation where a living wage and self-sufficiency are the beginnings of society, where charity is the the rule, and where the widow and orphan are cared for, the hungry are fed, and the naked are clothed.
What we as Edanians can learn from this is that the leaders of society, the Nobles and the King, must always adhere to the Knightly Virtues - prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, charity, diligence, patience, chastity, and humility.

An Integrated Life

  HRM Jennifer has a particular fondness for the painting posted above not just because of the composition, nor the skill, but for the attitudes expressed. People in the fields pausing in their labor as the procession passes by. No church is seen, but faith is everywhere. Prayers are not 'over there' or 'in that place', but everywhere and at all times. When HRM Jennifer first saw it she said,
   "That! That is what Edan is about - an integrated life!"
 
  Much has been written about the dangers of separating the aspects of life one from another. Hannah Arendt in particular theorized that the simplest manner to get an average person to commit evil is to simply declare it 'official' and segregate it from the rest of the person's life. Many experiments over the years have shown this segregation of life, this disconnection of work from family, of ethics from labor, to be capable of persuading normal people that evil is acceptable.
  But this separation can lead to a more pervasive and subtle breakdown, the isolation of ethics from virtually all aspects of life is just the furthest example of the isolation of the various aspects of life one from another. We learn in schools, but nowhere else. We pray in church, but nowhere else. We are kind to our own family, but no one else. We expect our children to be truthful but lie to our boss about being sick. In such a milieu moral relativism must result because our morals are relative within our selves, first.
  Now, some argue that the Enlightenment is to blame, other that the Enlightenment was the outgrowth of the beginnings of this trend, but such differences are, in the end, moot next to the fact that the general culture now elevates the separation of the elements of life to a crowning virtue. Not just the separation of church and state, which is repeated ad nauseum, but the expectation that politics (and science) is separate from standard moral judgement. A political candidate who appears to have a religious affiliation that is more than superficial is expected to announce that such attachments will not influence his or her political decision. Perhaps the most chilling aspect of this is the obvious relief felt by such a candidates supporters, who often applaud their favored candidate's announcement that they will never allow their moral convictions to influence their political behavior!

  Once this isolation of life is entrenched the society which embraces it begins to collapse and the members of that culture who most closely grasp separation are the most baffled; why do fees and taxes that impact parents reduce the number of children? Why should reducing regulations on business's ethical practices decrease workplace safety and increase unemployment? Why did the creation of incentives for single mothers lead to an explosive increase in out-of-wedlock births? Such people are literally incapable of realizing the consequences of actions; and why should they? Their culture, education, and society all repeatedly tell them that ethics is over there, work is over here, politics is somewhere else and they all stand isolated from one another.
  This is why so many in our modern culture simply cannot grasp the critical importance of family to society. They cannot grasp that society is simply family writ large. Again, why should they? "Family" isn't at work (where 'family issues' can cost you your job) nor school (where the 'family' is just an extension of the educational apparatus to ensure homework is done) nor politics (where loyalty to party is supreme). Taxes, laws, policies that weaken or destroy families?
  "Who cares?', they say "The family is just an outmoded symbol used by social conservatives."
  And then they bemoan the fact that crime is up, and businesses are unethical, children aren't being educated, and nothing seems to get done anymore....

  The nature of the Edanian government is an attempt to avoid this; leaders are part of the community and the relationship between the governed and the political leadership is explicit and personal. But as we build our own, unique culture we must remember this painting at the top; faith and family are part and parcel of everything we do. Whether we are farmers or programmers, nobles or commoners, parents or clergy we are part of the family of Edan.

Crown Prince Jonathan and the Order of St. Louis

This Friday, February 4th, at the Church of St. Francis HRH Jonathan will be accepted into the Order of St. Louis as a squire. The Pastor of St. Francis shall lead a ritual beginning with a blessing of HRH Jonathan's sword and ending with a vigil before the Blessed Sacrament.

Please join us in congratulating HRH Jonathan on his upcoming honors!

Quote on Monarchy

"Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach---men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison."

-C.S. Lewis

A Good Resource on Monarchy and Catholicism

Can be found here. There are many other links to follow from there, too!

Democracy vs. Monarchy from a Different Viewpoint

Lew Rockwell is an Anarcho-Capitalist. Dr. Hans-Herman Hoppe is an Austrian School economist. Both are hard line advocates of the most extreme forms of laissez-faire Capitalism and Libertarianism.

However, in an interview from 2008 Hoppe advocates Monarchy over Democracy and makes a number of points concerning the negative effects of Democracies over the past few centuries. A podcast of the interview can be found here, a transcript here.

Dr. Hoppe covers this topic more fully in his book Democracy: The God that Failed, which can be purchased here.

Democracy, Monarchy, Management, and Leadership

One common question that we face is ‘why do you support monarchy?’ in one of its various forms. After all, in the current world some variation of representative democracy seems to be the only way to govern. The fall of the Soviet Union led to an assumption that corporate capitalist democracy, socialist democracy, or some other flavor of representative democracy is the path the world is on.

Of course, the last 10 years have shown the faults of this assumption. From the balkanization of former Soviet territories into new nations to the repeated economic shocks which the most mature democracies of the West have only made worse the evidence shows that representative democracy will, to paraphrase John Adams, always destroy itself.

But why is that? From Greece to dozens of modern examples democracy fails. Some argue that Pareto was correct in arguing that democracy is a façade; others that Friedman was correct when he argued that voters are irrational in their voting choices; others argue that the ephemeral nature of a government that changes every few years makes it too unstable to survive; and, perhaps, Machiavelli was correct when he argued that, in the end, democracy breaks down when people realize they can vote themselves anything – and do.

When we speak of the failure of democracies we often hear the counter-argument that ‘monarchies were no better! There were many examples of terrible kings’. This is true. But it always makes us wonder – why do advocates of democracy excuse bad presidents and prime ministers while praising democracy but hold monarchy doomed by bad kings? Either a badly chosen person dooms the entire system, or it does not.

However, this does point out that both of these failures, the collapse of democracy and the danger of a bad king, both spring from the dichotomy that separates democracy from monarchy. This dichotomy has always existed but in the modern world it seems almost invisible. Indeed, some argue it doesn’t exist. In general this dichotomy is skills versus character. Or, as we call it, management versus leadership.

Management is a set of skills; planning your time; prioritizing tasks; communicating with and among subordinates, peers, and superiors; the documentation of procedures; etc. In the modern world many people, especially people who teach management skills. Include leadership as a skill. We posit that this concept, that leadership Is a skill on par with prioritizing tasks and that leadership can be learned in the classroom by anyone willing to do the homework, is one of the root causes of the recent economic difficulties. Time after time in the dot com burst and in the current recession there were stories of a major company, investment firm, venture capital group, Fortune 100 company, etc. where the people at the top had made catastrophic decisions which lead to the firm being in great peril. And time and again we learned that the response of these managers was to evade responsibility, hide the risks, and do their utmost to continue to gain great wealth for themselves at the expense of investors, shareholders, employees, even their own families.

Most, if not almost all, of these top business managers were, we are told, our ‘best and brightest’; graduates of Ivy League schools with MBAs from the top universities. Of course, ‘MBA’ stands for ‘Master of Business Administration’ and means that, as we stated, all of these managers responsible for costing millions of people trillions of dollars due to their own terrible management were trained that leadership is a skill that you can write down in your planner.

If leadership isn’t a skill, though, what is it? Leadership is the combination of traits and behaviors that cause you to be effective in giving purpose, direction, and motivation to others. The core traits of a leader are justice, courage, prudence, and temperance. These are called the Cardinal Virtues because you cannot have any unless you have all. To the best of our knowledge the only academic institutions that still strive to instill these virtues are the various military academies of the world, and they have varying degrees of emphasis on them (and, of course, varied results). The examples of business managers show the woeful lack of these traits in the financial world of corporate capitalism. Indeed, if anything the various crises of the last few decades show that the men and women from the ‘best’ schools are trained to embrace corruption, cowardice, foolishness, and gluttony.

History shows us that over time democracies slowly reject leadership in favor of management. Leaders come and go as elections pass by, meaning that it is difficult to judge the character of potential leaders – only skills can be assessed. Eventually the people elevate skills above character in the public sphere. Over time this elevation of skills over character becomes common in private life, as well. This erosion of admiration of virtuous character eventually leads to moral decline in society and leaders until Pareto, Friedman, and Machiavelli are shown to be correct.
This also explains the strength and weakness of monarchy. Monarchs and nobles are raised from birth to be leaders – if all goes well. The great monarchs and nobles of the past (as opposed to, perhaps, the great conquerors) displayed excellent character while the examples that discredit monarchies in the eyes of its foes were as flawed in character as any politician in a democracy.
At the same time the reliance of a kingdom upon the good character of its leaders encourages the elevation of those virtues throughout the citizenry. This is especially true when it is possible for a citizen to be elevated to the nobility by virtue and for a noble to lose their position through turpitude. When leadership is based upon and dependent upon moral, upright character then morality and virtues are esteemed and rewarded while immorality and baseness are despised and rejected. The reason that morality is rejected and baseness embraced in the modern West is because, inevitably, democracy rejects virtue and good character.

The Ninth Draft of the Constitution

With a rather serious change to the section on Nobles and many name changes. His Royal Highness the Crown Prince was instrumental in this draft, so please leave your feedback.

Text Follows:

Preamble

In furtherance of the desire of all people to be free, to gather together, and to determine their own destiny, His Royal Majesty Richard has created this constitution for the Kingdom of Edan to protect its citizens and their rights in humble acknowledgement of God who is the source of all justice, all freedom, and all good.

Chapter I The Kingdom of Edan

Article 1 Citizenry and Language

(1) Citizens of the Kingdom of Edan are all people granted citizenship as detailed by this constitution or children who are either;

(a) Under the age of 18 at the time of the naturalization of their parent(s).

(b) Born after the naturalization of their parent(s).

(2) All citizens must take an oath of fealty at the time of naturalization or within of time following their 18^th birthday as defined in this constitution. Failure to do so may result in penalties up to the loss of citizenship.

(3) The official languages of the Kingdom of Edan are American English and Latin.

(4) The full name of the State of Edan is "The Kingdom of Edan". The short form of the State's name is "Edan". The three-letter abbreviation is KED. Citizens are referred to as "Edanians".

Article 2 Nature of the Kingdom of Edan

(1) The Kingdom of Edan is a sovereign, Catholic, constitutional monarchy.

(2) This Constitution, as ratified by the King as an instrument of his sovereignty and authority, is the ultimate law of the Kingdom.

Article 3 Royal and National Heraldry, National Symbols, and National Capitol

(1) The flag of the Kingdom of Edan is an ensign with a ratio of 3:5; the field shall be black with a vertical stripe of gold of one-tenth the width of the ensign placed one-tenth of the width of the ensign from the outer, or fly, end. Between this stripe and the outer, or fly, end shall be placed seven evenly spaced Maltese crosses in a vertical column. The crosses shall each be gold and shall have a height and width of one-eighth the height of the flag.

(2) The coat of arms and seal of the Kingdom of Edan is a black shield with a large Maltese cross of gold centered. Below shall be the national motto.

(3) The national motto is "Our path is Freedom, our shield is Truth, our sword is Justice".

(4) The royal coat of arms and seal shall be a black shield with a large Jerusalem cross of gold, centered. Below shall be the motto of the Royal Family.

(5) The motto of the Royal Family is “Magna est Veritas et Praevalet”.

(6) The national anthem of the Kingdom of Edan is “Mars: the Bringer of War” from the Planets Suite by Gustav Holst.

(5) The capitol of the Kingdom of Edan is to be determined by legislation.

Until such time, it shall be the Royal Palace of the Sovereign.

Chapter II Objectives of the Kingdom of Edan

Article 4 General Constitutional Objectives

(1) The Kingdom holds as inherent and inalienable the rights of its people to freedom, dignity, and justice.

(2) The Kingdom promotes:

(a) The rights of its citizens as individuals and as a Kingdom.

(b) The welfare, health, and safety of its citizenry.

(c) The cultural identity of Edanian citizens and the Kingdom.

(d) The development and preservation of a unique Edanian culture.

(e) The creation and maintenance of the Kingdom of Edan as a community

Article 5 Defense of the Kingdom

(1) It is the duty and obligation of the Kingdom to protect its citizens.

(2) The Kingdom takes adequate measures to preserve its integrity and the safety of its citizens even in times of war or civil war.

(3) The Kingdom protects its citizenry and its own integrity against violence and catastrophe.

Chapter III Organization of the Kingdom

Part I General Organization

Article 6 Citizens

(1) Citizens are the life of the Kingdom. Native and naturalized citizens are equal in the eyes of the Kingdom. To be a citizen a person must;

(a) Be 18 years of age or older and have sworn a valid oath of fealty to the King. A person must be of sound mind to swear an oath of fealty.

(b) Be 17 years of age or younger or be incapable of swearing a valid oath of fealty and be the child or legal ward of a citizen.

(2) Citizens cannot be involuntarily deprived of their citizenship except as defined by this constitution. Citizens wishing to relinquish their citizenship may do so by delivering a written, public, signed letter of repudiation of citizenship to the Ministry of State, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Royal Household, any ambassador, consul, or official diplomat, or any member of the royal family.

(a) Any repudiation of citizenship must state that the citizen knowingly and willingly requests a full and permanent removal of their citizenship in the Kingdom of Edan.

(b) As a repudiation of citizenship is the breaking of an oath of fealty individuals that do so are barred from ever re-applying for citizenship in the Kingdom. Nor may they be employed by or for the government of the Kingdom or its agencies.

(3) Refusal to swear the oath of fealty as described in this constitution shall be considered to be a willful refusal of citizenship. Upon turning 18 years old a citizen has 6 months to either swear the oath of fealty or be declared mentally incompetent. If either condition is not met, that person relinquishes their citizenship, but is free to apply for citizenship after the age of 25.

(4) The right to vote is not universal. In order to have the ability to vote a person must;

(a) Be a citizen of Edan as defined in Article 6 section 1 of this Constitution

(b) Be mentally competent

(c) Be male

(d) Be at least 18 years old

(e) Not be barred from voting due to penalties imposed by the courts for a specific conviction

(f) Have valid census information on file with the Ministry of State no more than 5 years old

(g) Have met the minimum education standards of the Kingdom as defined in this Constitution, Article 39 item 10, as demonstrated by formal test

Article 7 Organizational Principles

(1) The powers and rights of the Edanian government are expressions of the King’s sovereignty. Executive, judicial, and legislative powers cannot be separated in the person of the King or in the institution of the Kingdom. This constitution establishes checks and limits to the King’s powers to ensure just and moral government in the interests of the Edanian people.

Article 8 Powers of the Kingdom

(1) The Kingdom reserves for itself exclusive jurisdiction over the following subjects:

(a) Defense of the nation. No person may raise or maintain armies, militias, armed vessels, or private military forces except as formally authorized by Edicts of Ennoblement or as a duly-appointed Royal Governor with direct authorization by the King. All armed forces, navies, armed vessels, or militias are under the authority of the King.

(b) Foreign relations. No private citizen, senator, councilor, noble, or other citizen of Edan may engage in diplomacy with foreign states without being formally charged as an ambassador by the King or the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

(c) Economic regulations including banking, securities, stocks, bonds, commodities, and other financial instruments, markets, or institutions.

(d) Infrastructure, utilities, and traffic including canals, roads, thoroughfares, rivers, streams, lakes, public computer networks, electricity distribution, gas distribution, and all similar systems.

(e) Taxation, to include levies, tariffs, and duties.

(f) Private, criminal, and procedural law.

(g) Educational and technical training standards.

(h) Weights and measures.

(i) The coining, printing or other creation of money, as well as the establishment of its value.

(j) The establishment of professional standards, the licensing of professionals, and the enforcement of such standards.

(k) The regulation and registration of patents, copyrights, and trademarks and the enforcement of such standards.

(l) The regulation of waterways, seaways, airspace, and related transportation controls.

(m) The use of the electromagnetic spectrum for communications, other media, or any form of commercial or non-commercial use.

(n) The definition of marriage, contract law, corporate nature and structure, the definition of public morals, private moral behavior, and other such matters of family and social morality.

(o) All other matters which, by their nature or because of their relations to above listed subjects, require national control.

(2) The Kingdom may grant its sovereign powers to international or supranational bodies, including systems of mutual collective security and trade organizations, as long as it retains the right to withdraw from such organizations at will, may rescind its rights fully unto itself at any time, is assured an adequate level of representation in those bodies and those bodies guarantee sufficient legal protection for the citizens of the Kingdom. If membership or participation in such a body requires the violation of the rights enumerated in this constitution the Kingdom shall not join or participate in such a group.

(3) As agents of the Crown, Nobles are given special powers to legislate, police, and enforce these powers. Failure to fulfill these duties can be grounds for negligence.

Part II Representation of the Kingdom

Article 9 The Sovereign

(1) As the source of the Kingdom and its sovereignty, the Sovereign is the embodiment of the Kingdom and its citizens as well as the head of state and the chief executive. Within the constitution the term 'king' shall apply to the Sovereign regardless of the actual gender of the Sovereign.

(2) The full title of the King shall be "His Royal Majesty, (name), King of

Edan, Defender of the People". The short title shall be "His Royal Majesty, (name)". If the sovereign is female, the word "her" shall replace "his" and "queen" shall replace "king".

(3) The King has the right to review and approve or disapprove legislation, the right of High Justice, and the sole right to conduct foreign affairs and all other representative functions of the State.

(4) The King ascends to the throne of the Kingdom of Edan upon the death, abdication, excommunication, or removal of the previous sovereign.

(5) The Heir Designate is chosen in accord with the rules of primogeniture. If no living male descendent exists or if all living male descendents are ineligible, the King may select another Heir Designate according to agnatic-cognatic inheritance based upon the bloodlines of the then-reigning King. If no such relative exists or if all such relative are ineligible, the King may select a female heir following the same process. If there is still no eligible heir, the King may slelct an heir via proximity of blood, males first and then females. If no eligible relative exists within 7 degrees of relationship, the King may appoint a Duke, Count, Earl or one of their descendents as the Heir Designate. The Heir Designate shall assume the throne pursuant to Part II, Article 9, Item 2, above. The Heir Designate shall be styled His Highness, the Crown Prince or Her Highness, the Crown Princess. In exception, spouses shall retain their existing title(s).

(6) The Heir Designate must be a practicing Catholic in communion with Rome.

(7) The Kingdom of Edan is inherited as a fideicommissum, although the granting of territory, land, or other assets as fiefdoms is permitted.

(8) Without royal edict, all noble titles, lands, properties, etc. shall also be bound by the inheritance laws described in Article 10, items 5 through 7 with the following exceptions

(a) There is no requirement for a noble or his heirs to be Catholic unless such a requirement was included in the Edict of Entitlement.

(b) If there are no eligible relatives via proximity of blood all inheritance shall revert to the King or superior liege lord.

(9) If the Heir Designate is under the age of 18 a Regent shall be appointed by the King. If the King dies or is removed from office without designating a regent, or if the regent dies or is convicted of a felony before the majority of the heir, the living spouse of the former King shall be made Regent unless a three-fourths majority of the Senate and the Council, voting separately, rejects them as Regent. If this occurs, a Regent shall be appointed by a three-fourths majority of each of the houses of the Assembly and may hold no other office. The Regent shall exercise all powers of the King, excepting the designation of heirs, until the majority of the King.

(10) The Regent must be a practicing Catholic in Communion with Rome.

(11) If the King is found by three independent medical experts to be permanently incapable of fulfilling his duties the Assembly may vote to remove him from the throne by a three-fourth majority of the General Assembly. If this occurs, the Heir Designate shall immediately assume the throne.

(12) If the King is temporarily incapacitated his duties will be fulfilled by the Royal Spouse and the Heir Designate.

(13) The King must remain a practicing Catholic in communion with Rome. If the King is excommunicated by His Holiness the Pope and does not return to full communion with the Catholic Church within 2 years a simple majority of the General Assembly may remove him from the throne.

(14) The Royal Spouse must be a practicing Catholic in communion with Rome at the time of marriage and thereafter. The King may only marry by means of a Catholic ceremony and all descendents of the King must be raised as Catholics in communion with Rome.

(15) The King may announce his abdication by Royal Decree. Such a Decree of Abdication must name the Heir Designate and Regent, if required.

Part III Executive Power

Article 10 The King

(1) The executive powers and privileges of the Kingdom are solely the King’s, although some of those powers and privileges are partially extended to others.

(2) The King may delegate some of his powers to subordinates, providing;

(a) No power, right, or ability of the King may be permanently granted to any individual, office, ministry, or group,

(b) the King may rescind any such rights to himself at any time,

(c) the King shall always have the responsibility of oversight of the exercise of his delegated powers,

(d) the powers of High Justice, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, designation of heirs, and dissolution of the Assembly are solely the King's and may never be delegated.

(3) The King appoints national Ministers, subject to the approval of the Assembly, and may dismiss them freely.

(4) The King appoints all ambassadors and may dismiss them freely.

(5) The King appoints all judges, subject to the approval of the Assembly, and may dismiss them as detailed in this Constitution.

(6) The King appoints all Governors, subject to approval of the Assembly, and may dismiss them freely.

(7) The King has the right to designate national holidays, days of mourning, and days of reflection.

(8) The King has the right to create and promulgate Orders of Knighthood and titles of Nobility, excepting that the charters of such Orders and titles shall not infringe upon the constitution or the laws of the Kingdom.

(9) The King is Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces.

(10) The King retains the sole right to dissolve the Assembly, in whole or in its separate houses. This right may only be exercised in accordance with this Constitution.

(11) The King has the right to issue Noble titles, lands, property, and monies as he sees fit.

(12) The King may issues letters of marque and reprisal

(13) The King exercises his rights through Royal Decrees. As instruments of the sovereign power of the King Royal Decrees have the force of law.

Article 11 The Nobility

(1) The Nobility of the Kingdom of Edan consists of those citizens granted a noble title by the King or by a noble with the Right of Enfeofment. The King grants titles of nobility at will. Nobles granted the Right of Enfeofment may exercise that right as defined in their own Edict of Ennoblement, subject to the approval of the King and their own liege, as appropriate. Members of the Nobility are officers of the government and are granted special rights by law.

(2) Titles, precedent, Rights of Enfeofment, and inheritability are established by the King via the Edict of Ennoblement which creates a new noble. If a lesser Noble is enfeofedby a Noble other than the king, these terms shall be limited as per the King’s original Edict of Ennoblement and any sub-liege’s own strictures.

(3) The Royal Family is, by definition, first in precedence and honors.

(4) All Nobles have a duty and responsibility to act as examples of the highest ideals of the Kingdom. The King can rescind the titles and duties of nobles and noble families for Treason, Sedition, moral turpitude, or being negligent in their responsibilities to the Kingdom.

(a) A Noble facing the removal of titles for moral turpitude or negligence can appeal to the Senate. If the Senate votes against the action of the King by 3/4ths majority the noble may retain his titles and positions.

(b) The stripping of titles shall also include the forfeiture of all grants of money,

stipends, income, property, or land granted as part of either titles or duties.

(c) All titles, lands, incomes, stipends, property, or other goods, honors, and titles, shall revert to the King or to the liege lord who granted the title(s) and position(s). The responsibilities of the lands and peoples of the former noble shall also revert to the King or other grantor of title(s) and position(s).

Article 12 The Cabinet

(1) The members of the Cabinet aid the King in his exercise of executive power. They also advise the King on matters of State.

(2) The First Senator, President of the Council and the judges of the High Tribunal may not also be members of the Cabinet.

(3) Members of the Cabinet must be citizens.

(4) The King nominates members of the Cabinet to the First Senator. All such nominees are confirmed unless a two-thirds majority of each of the separate houses of the Assembly votes to reject them. The same person may only be nominated twice in a row. If a nominee is rejected twice in a row, they cannot be nominated again until 3 other persons have also been rejected for the position or until another person has fulfilled the duties of the nominated position for a period of not less than six months.

(5) Approval or rejection must be made by the Senate within one week of the King's nomination if the nomination is made during a Conclave. If made during a period of recess or during a Null Conclave, the nomination must be voted upon during the first week of the next Conclave. Failure to do so shall constitute acceptance by default. If this occurs or if the nomination is approved the nomination is forwarded to the Council by the King.

(6) The Council must approve or reject a Cabinet nominee within one week of receiving the nomination from the Senate. If made during a period of recess or during a Null Conclave, the nomination must be voted upon during the first week of the next Conclave. Failure to do so shall constitute acceptance by default. If this occurs or if the nomination is approved the nominee shall assume the duties of the nominated position immediately.

(7) It is the duty of the members of the Cabinet to grant their advice to the King on matters of State.

(8) Members of the Cabinet may resign their positions at will by a public and written declaration delivered to the King or the First Senator if the King is unavailable. The Cabinet position will be vacant immediately upon receipt of such a declaration.

(9) The King may remove members of the Cabinet at will and need not have cause or approval. The First Senator or President of the Council may request that the King present a written explanation of such a removal; the King is not obliged to do so. If the King does submit a written explanation, he may demand that it be kept private and unpublished.

(10) Cabinet members found guilty of Treason, Bribery, or non-involuntary Murder must be removed by the King. Such a reason may not be kept private and unpublished.

(11) If a Ministerial position becomes vacant the King retains all of the rights and privileges

of the position himself until a new member of the Cabinet is confirmed.

Article 13 The High Chamberlain

(1) The High Chamberlain shall have the highest precedence within the cabinet.

(2) The High Chamberlain is concerned with the internal affairs of the Kingdom to include; transportation, infrastructure, utilities, education, labor, housing, social welfare, and the environment. He is the senior member of the Cabinet and head of the Ministry of State.

(3) The High Chamberlain shall oversee all elections as set forth in this

Constitution.

(4) The High Chamberlain shall maintain a constant Census of citizens of the Kingdom. Every tenth year he shall oversee a Grand Census. The King may call for a Royal Census; the Grand Census and Royal Census shall be the best efforts possible to the Kingdom to accurately count each and every citizen of the Kingdom. The King may not call a Royal Census within 35 months of a previous or planned future Grand census. Further the King may not call a Royal Census within 23 months of a past Royal Census. Otherwise, the King may call a census at will. The Grand Census and Royal Census shall be used to determine the size of the Senate and the Council. All Census and Royal Census information shall be freely available to the King, the courts and the Assembly.

(5) If the High Chamberlain is a Noble, he shall be called the Lord High Chamberlain.

Article 14 The High Chancellor

(1) The High Chancellor shall be second in precedence within the cabinet.

(2) The High Chancellor is concerned with the relationship of the Kingdom of Edan with other States and organizations of States and is the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

(3) The High Chancellor shall oversee the activities of all ambassadors, consuls, and diplomats. In particular, the High Chancellor will ensure that such Royal officers properly represent and advance the best interests of the Kingdom of Edan in the performance of their duties.

(4) The High Chancellor shall serve as Ambassador-at-Large for the Kingdom, representing Edan at critical negotiations, summits, and treaty signings as determined by the King.

(5) If the High Chancellor is a Noble, he shall be called the Lord High Chancellor.

Article 15 The High Treasurer

(1) The High Treasurer shall be third in precedence within the cabinet.

(2) The High Treasurer is concerned with the economy of the Kingdom, to include banking, taxation, and the coining of money and is the head of the Ministry of Finance.

(2) The High Treasurer shall oversee the Royal Treasury, the Royal Bank, and all Royal economic endeavors.

(3) The High Treasurer will work closely with the King to draft a proposed budget for the Assembly.

(4) At such time as the Assembly approves a budget, the High Treasurer, in consultation with the King and the High Chamberlain, shall set the taxes for the forthcoming year. The proposed taxes shall be submitted to the King for approval no later than one month after the approval of a new budget. The King may accept, reject, or modify the proposed taxes as he sees fit, but must publicly announce the final tax schedule no later than November 15th of the current year.

(5) The High Treasurer shall maintain copies of all financial records of the Kingdom. Such records shall be freely available to the King, the First Senator, and the President of the Council.

(6) If the High Treasurer is a Noble, he shall be called the Lord High Treasurer.

Article 16 The High Constable

(1) The High Constable shall be called the fourth in precedence.

(2) The High Constable is concerned with the enforcement of Law and the protection of the citizens of Edan from criminal threats and is the head of the Ministry of Justice.

(3) The High Constable shall oversee the activities and procedures of; all law enforcement personnel, departments, and groups; all prisons, prison guards, and other corrections agencies; all Royal search, rescue, relief, and aid agencies. The High Constable shall ensure that all Royal justice officers properly represent and advance the best interests of the Kingdom of Edan in the performance of their duties.

(4) The High Constable and his official records shall be available to the King and the High Tribunal for assistance at all times.

(5) If a Noble, the shall be called the Lord High Constable.

Article 17 The High Marshall

(1) The High Marshall shall be fifth in precedence within the cabinet.

(2) The High Marshall is concerned with the defense of the Kingdom from outside threats and is the head of the Ministry of the Army and Navy.

(3) The High Marshall shall oversee all Royal military forces; he will ensure that the members of the armed forces conduct themselves in accordance with this Constitution and the Laws of the Kingdom.

(4) If a Noble, he shall be called the Lord High Marshall.

Article 18 The High Steward

(1) The High Steward shall be sixth in precedence within the cabinet.

(2) The High Steward is concerned with maintaining information related to the Kingdom and its activities.

(3) The High Steward shall oversee the Royal Library, the Assembly's Library, the Royal Archives, and all Royal media, including telephone, radio, television, and internet communications.

(4) The High Steward shall maintain separate copies of the Record of Legislation provided to him by the Secretary of the Council.

(5) If a noble, he shall be called the Lord High Steward.

Article 19 Royal Advisors

(1) The King may appoint as many as three Royal Advisors to the Cabinet.

(2) Royal Advisors head no Ministry and may not be members of the Judicial branch nor the Assembly.

(3) The King may empower Royal Advisors to act as ambassadors, spokesmen, or as assistants to the various Ministers. Their prime duty, however, is to give their advice to the King.

Article 20 Other Cabinet Positions

(1) Additional Cabinet positions may be created by the King. Such new positions may be disapproved by a two-thirds majority of each of the separate houses of the Assembly. Such disapproval must be made within two weeks of the King's creation of a new position if the announcement is made during a Conclave. If made during a period of recess or during a Null Conclave, the new position must be voted upon during the first week of the next Conclave. Failure to do so shall constitute acceptance by default.

(2) If new Cabinet positions will head ministries, the specific scope and duties of the new Ministerial position must be defined at the time the position is created.

Chapter IV Legislative Power

Article 21 Elections

(1) Elections are to be overseen by the Minister of State; they are to be free, equal, and private. The Minister of State must ensure that, as far as is possible, the procedures and processes of voting do not hinder any citizen with the right to vote from casting a proper and legal ballot and that no person, group, faction, or party is discriminated against in the gathering or counting of legitimate votes.

(2) General Elections are scheduled every two years for the Senate. General Elections shall begin on March 1st at 00:01 GMT and shall last until March 2^nd at 23:59 GMT. Votes not cast during the time of General Elections are not counted.

(3) Special Elections are held as required by law. Special Elections begin 1 week after they are announced and last 72 hours. Votes not cast during this period are not counted.

(4) The results of elections shall be determined after no less than 2 full counts of all votes cast. If more than 3 full counts are required the Ministry of Justice shall assist in the determination of vote totals. Results are to be posted openly and publicly.

(5) In the event of equal results in an election the Minister of State is to determine the final winner(s) by means of run off elections between those candidates. If multiple candidates are tied in their results, run off election(s) shall be held concurrently and repeatedly until results are final..

Article 22 The Assembly; the Senate

(1) The legislative power is vested primarily in the Assembly. The Assembly is divided into two houses, the Senate and the Council. The Council is the senior body.

(2) Senators are elected to the Senate in two manners; “At Large” Senators are elected in general elections by all citizens of the nation. ‘Domain” Senators are elected by the citizens of a particular Noble Domain. The Senate is a proportional representation body. The number of Senators is determined as follows;

(a) If the Kingdom’s total population is below 100 persons, the Senate shall not be formed. All functions and duties of the Senate shall be assumed by the Council or, if that body is less than its minimum size, by the King.

(b) If the Kingdom’s total population is less than 500 persons, there shall be one ‘At Large’ senator for every 50 persons, rounding up.

(c) If the Kingdom’s total population is less than 1,000 persons, there shall be one ‘At Large’ senator for every 100 persons, rounding up.

(d) If the Kingdom’s total population is less than 5,000 persons, there shall be one ‘At Large’ senator for every 500 persons, rounding up.

(e) If the Kingdom’s total population is less than 10,000 persons, there shall be one ‘At Large’ senator for every 1000 persons, rounding down.

(f) If the Kingdom’s population is above 10,000 then the Senate shall have 12 ‘At Large’ members.

(g) In exception to the above, there shall never be fewer than 7 senators within the Assembly. If fewer than 7 senators are available due to insufficient candidates the King will fill any vacancies by royal decree.

(h) In addition to the above, each major noble realm shall have a single ‘Domain’ senator elected from their own citizens. Only citizens resident within the fiefdom or sworn to the noble may vote in such domain elections. Citizens of sub-fiefs or sworn to subordinate nobles are included in such voting.

(i) for purposes of this determination, a ‘major noble realm’ is one where the Royal Edict of Ennoblement grants a Right of Enfeofment with the potential of at least 2 levels of subordinate hereditary nobility.

(ii) Each major noble realm is entitled to its own Domain Senator even if subordinate enfeofments have not been granted

(i) The level of representation within the Senate may only be changed within the month following a general election and may only be changed based upon official census figures. Such changes will be in effect for the next election.

(3) Senators serve terms of 2 years.

(4) Senators must be citizens of the Kingdom, Senators must be eligible to vote and cannot be Nobles.

(5) Any senator may resign his position by public and written declaration delivered to the First Senator or the King, if the First Senator is unavailable. The position of that senator shall at that time become vacant.

(6) If a senator fails to vote in 3 consecutive Conclaves, their position is at that time made vacant.

(7) Once per term a senator may request a Leave of Absence lasting for up to 2 Conclaves. The Leave of Absence must be granted. The senator is exempt from rules of voting in Article 23, item 6 during that time.

(8) Vacancies within the Senate are to be filled by appointment by the King, pending the next scheduled general election of the Senate.

(9) Within one week of general elections of the Senate, or the special election of the entire Senate, the Senate shall nominate, by simple majority, one of their number as First Senator. The King then ratifies this nomination; the King is required to ratify this nomination within 2 days; if the King fails to ratify the selection of First Senator within 2 days, the First Senator is ratified by default. If the position of First Senator is vacated for any reason, the Senate shall elect a new First Senator and the King will also ratify him. If the Senate fails to nominate a First Senator within the first week, the King shall call a special Conclave lasting one week during which the only business of the Senate is to elect a First Senator. If the Senate still fails to nominate a First Senator, the King may dissolve the Senate and call for special elections of the entire Senate or he may appoint a First Senator. If a First Senator is appointed by the King, the Council shall approve them in a manner identical to the approval or rejection of a member of the Cabinet.

(10) Decisions of the Senate require a simple majority of the votes cast unless this Constitution provides otherwise.

Article 23 The Assembly; the Council

(1) The Council is composed of the Nobles of the Kingdom. Specifically the holder of a Noble title is eligible for Council membership. If the Noble is under the age of 21 the King shall appoint a family member to represent them in the Council; this appointment will be amongst relatives eligible to vote and closest in proximity of blood who are 21 years old or older. If no such family member is available the King shall appoint a citizen to the council to represent them until the titleholder turns 21 years old. Likewise, if a member of the Council is unable to attend due to illness, military service, or other such circumstances their heir may fulfill their duties with the approval of the King.

(2) The Council shall never consist of more than 12 members. Membership in the Council will be determined by precedence.

(3) If there are less than 7 Nobles of appropriate age within the Kingdom, then the powers of the Council shall pass to the King.

(4) If a Councilor fails to vote in 3 conclaves during one session, they forfeit their ability to vote until the next session of the Assembly. If a member of the Council forfeits their right to vote in Council more than once in a three year period or more than three times in a 10 year period they may be considered derelict in their duties to the Kingdom. Proxies appointed by the King or by a titleholder that are derelict in their duties will not impugn the responsibilities of the noble they represent. Instead, they shall be replaced by a new proxy.

(5) A member of the Council may request a leave of absence each year; the President of the Council (or King, if the President of the Council requests such leave) may decline this request. A Leave of Absence last 2 Conclaves and the member of the Council is exempt from the voting rules of Article 24, item 5 during that time.

(6) A member of the Council on active military duty with no heir over the age of 21 may request that his seat on the Council remain vacant until such time as his term of active duty is over, his heir achieves the age of 21, or he assigns a proxy. During this time the voting rules of Article 24 item 5 do not apply. The King may accept this request, deny this request, or appoint his own proxy at will.

(7) That member of the Council with highest precedence as defined by the Royal Edicts of Ennoblement shall assume the title and duties of Earl Marshal.

(8) If the member of the Council with highest precedent is below the age of 21, medically incapacitated for more than 6 months without assigning their Council duties to their heir, holding a position within the Cabinet, on Leave of Absence, or engaged in active military service the position of Earl Marshal shall be awarded in declining order of precedence until such time as the premiere member of the Council may take up ror resume their duties.

(9) Decisions of the Council require a simple majority of votes cast unless otherwise provided in this Constitution.

Article 24 The First Senator

(1) The First Senator presides over all meetings of the Senate as Chairman of the Senate.

(2) The First Senator appoints a fellow member of the Senate as Secretary of the Senate. The Secretary of the Senate creates, maintains, and reports all records of the Senate to the Secretary of the Council.

(3) It is the duty of the First Senator to grant his advice to the King on matters of State.

Article 25 The Earl Marshal

(1) The Earl Marshal presides over all meetings of the Council as its President and Chairman.

(2) The Earl Marshal appoints a fellow Councilor as Secretary of the Council. The Secretary of the Council creates and .maintains the Record of Legislation.

(3) It is the duty of the Earl Marshal to advise the King on matters of State.

Article 26 Rights of Members of the Assembly

(1) Members of the Assembly may not be subjected to judicial or civil action for a vote cast or a statement made by them in the Assembly or in any of its committees, excepting only acts of Sedition, Blasphemy, Calumny against the Catholic Church, High Treason, or High Treachery.

(2) Members of the Assembly may not be arrested or detained while physically present at a formal Conclave without the approval of the High Tribunal.

(3) Remuneration for members of the Assembly is to be determined by legislation. If such remuneration exists, it may not be excessive. Any changes made to remuneration may not take effect until after the then-current session of the Senate ends.

Article 27 The Legislative Process

(1) Potential legislation (called Bills) may only be introduced by members of the Assembly or the King.

(2) All members of the Assembly must vote "yes", "no", or "abstain" on every

Bill submitted for consideration.

(3) Votes may be submitted in writing, by phone, or electronically.

(a) the Secretary of State shall devise procedures to prevent voting fraud

(b) the First Senator and President of the Council shall enforce such procedures.

(4) All votes must be submitted to the Secretary by the end of the time allotted for voting.

(5) Bills must first be approved by the house of the Assembly into which they are introduced. Bills submitted by the King are introduced into the Council. If approved, they are sent to the other house of the Assembly. Bills defeated in the second house may be resubmitted one time during the then-current Conclave.

(6) Bills approved by the second house are sent to the King. The King may ratify or reject the Bill in whole or in part. The portions ratified are entered into the Record of Legislation as Law. If the King rejects portions of a bill, it may only be by designated sections.

(7) If the Bill, or portions of it, is rejected by the King it is returned to the originating house along with a written record of the King's objections to the Bill. If it is re-approved by unanimous vote of each house of the Assembly in the same manner as a new Bill, it is ratified by the actions of the Assembly, entered into the Record of Legislation, and made Law over the King's rejection. Any Laws that violate this Constitution are void and null.

(8) In exception to the above, legislation amending this Constitution requires two thirds of the votes cast in each house of the Assembly. The King must accept or reject proposed Constitutional Amendments as a whole. Constitutional Amendments cannot be made Law over the King's rejection. Such Constitutional Amendments further require a two-thirds majority of the popular vote in a Constitutional Referendum. All such amendments are then attached to this Constitution.

(9) Laws must specify their effective date and cannot be ex post facto.

(10) Bills introduced for non-legislative purposes, such as recommendations to the King or the return of the right to vote in specific cases, are referred to as Acts of the Assembly.

Article 28 Expenditures

(1) In exception to the above, Bills concerning expenditures, Assembly remuneration, and the Budget may only be introduced by members of the Senate or by the King. The King’s proposed Budget must be the first bill introduced in the Senate during the first conclave of the year once a First Senator is named, must be voted on as soon as possible and all votes must be complete within the first conclave. If not voted against by a three-fourths majority of the Senate, it is accepted. Once approved, it will be forwarded to the Council, which must also vote on the Budget immediately. If the Council rejects the proposed Budget by a three-fourths majority, they must provide public and written objections and suggestions for improvement. After the rejection of the King’s budget Senators and the King may introduce other proposals for a budget. These later proposals are voted for by simple majority of both the Senate and the Council. The Senate shall conduct no other business until a new budget is forwarded to the Council.

(2) The budget shall be made for the following year. Long-term budget items may be proposed as separate legislation, but any expenditure allocated for more than a 1-year period requires a 2/3 majority of both houses of the Assembly. No expenditure may be allocated for more than 6 years. No expenditure may be of limited but indefinite period over the rejection of the King.

(3) At such time as a Budget is approved by the Senate but rejected by the

Council twice consecutively, or approved by the Assembly and rejected by the

King twice consecutively, the First Senator shall convene a special Conclave of the entire Assembly. Such a special Conclave lasts one week. During this Special Conclave the Budget shall be reviewed and voted upon by the Assembly as a whole. If it is approved by a simple majority of the Assembly as a whole, it is sent to the King for ratification. If it fails, a second special Conclave shall be called, as above. If this process fails to produce a Budget a second time, the King shall call for the Dissolution of the Senate.

Article 29 Sessions and Conclaves

(1) A session of the Assembly shall last from March 8^th until October 31^st.

(2) On March 8th the President of the Council shall call a Conclave; each such Conclave shall consist of an eight-week period during which the work of the Assembly is performed.

( 3) At the end of a Conclave there is a two-week recess. On the first day of the third week the President of the Council shall call the next Conclave.

(4) Once per session the First Senator may request that the King grant a Null Conclave; such a Conclave is an eight-week period of extended recess between standard recesses. The King may accept or refuse such a request at will.

(5) The Grand Conclave shall be held each year on the 15^th of November.

(a) The Cabinet, the High Tribunal, and the King shall attend the Grand Conclave in addition to the Assembly.

(b) The only business of the Grand Conclave shall be the publishing of the next year’s tax schedule and the Royal Address, where the King declares the state of the Kingdom and addresses the citizens concerning the upcoming year.

Article 30 Votes of Confidence

(1) A Vote of Confidence is a vote cast by the members of the Senate demonstrating their confidence in the existing government. If such a vote fails to pass by a simple majority of the Senate, the King may dissolve the Senate by Royal Decree issued within 2 days of the failed vote.

(2) The King may call for a Vote of Confidence once per session. This request may be made at any time during any normal or Special Conclave.

(3) If the Senate is Dissolved, the King shall direct the Minister of State to hold special elections for the dissolved house as detailed in this Constitution. Announcements of such special elections must be made no more than four days after the Royal Decree of Dissolution is issued.

Article 31 Treaties

(1) The King retains the sole right to sign treaties with other States and organizations of States.

(2) The Assembly must ratify any treaty signed by the King. If 2/3 of each of the houses of the Assembly votes against such a treaty, it is nullified.

(3) If the Assembly fails to ratify or decline a treaty within two conclaves of the King's signature, it is ratified by default.

(4) Any treaty that, in whole or in part, violates this Constitution shall be null and void.

Article 32 State of Emergency

(1) In situations of grave and immediate threat to the existence of the

Kingdom, the King, as both the head of state and commander of the armed forces, may declare a State of Emergency.

(2) During a State of Emergency all powers of the Kingdom; executive, legislative, and judicial; are returned to the person of the King. The King may use Royal Decrees to promulgate Laws, issue legal judgments, and suspend all personal rights save the Right to Life.

(3) As soon as possible after such a declaration the Assembly shall vote to ratify the State of Emergency. This ratification requires a simple majority of each house of the Assembly. A State of Emergency exists until such ratification fails.

(4) The First Senator or the President of the Council may call for a vote of Emergency Powers at any time. If this vote is approved by both houses of the Assembly a State of Emergency exists.

(5) A State of Emergency shall last no more than six months, although the King or Assembly may declare another immediately.

(6) A State of Emergency can be ended by Royal Decree.

(7) All laws, legal judgments, and other such Royal Decrees issued by the King during a State of Emergency shall have the full force of law for the duration of the emergency. All such laws must be ratified as per new legislation to extend more than 30 days beyond the end of emergency powers. Legal judgments and those powers normally retained by the King remain in full force.

Chapter V Judicial Power

Article 33 The Courts

(1) Judicial power is a function of the King’s sovereignty. Judicial power is to be applied justly and fairly.

(2) Judges are appointed by the King or his Nobles. Their time in office is determined by the King, the appointing Noble, by the terms of this Constitution, or by legislation. Any judicial tenure must be reasonable and uniform.

(3) Members of the Peerage may not be appointed as judges to any court but the High Tribunal.

Article 34 The High Tribunal

(1) The High Tribunal is the highest court of the Kingdom and decides issues that cannot be resolved by lower courts. In particular, the High Tribunal has jurisdiction over cases on appeal from Royal Courts as the High Tribunal deems necessary to review.

(2) Cases before the High Tribunal are never heard before a jury; all decisions are solely the decisions of the members of the High Tribunal. This does not change the requirement for open hearings and sentences, nor does it limit the King’s power of High Justice.

(3) The High Tribunal consists of three members. Members of the High Tribunal must be citizens retaining the right to vote and cannot hold any other position within the government of the Kingdom or its Provinces while serving as a member of the High Tribunal. They further may hold no other office for one full year after leaving the High Tribunal.

(4) Members of the High Tribunal are appointed for a period of 10 years.

(5) The senior judge of the High Tribunal shall be appointed the High Judge by the King; the High Judge shall preside at all meetings of the High Tribunal as its President and Chairman.

(6) In the event that two or more members of the High Tribunal are equal in seniority, the King shall appoint one of them High Judge at his pleasure.

(7) A session of the High Tribunal shall last each year from the first Monday in the month of February until the first Friday in the month of November. The High Tribunal shall conduct its business during its sessions.

(8) The period between sessions is to be used to review the decisions of the Royal Courts for the year and to examine potential future cases before the High Tribunal.

(9) The High Judge may declare two periods of recess per session. Such periods of recess shall last one month and must be separated by no less than 2 months.

(10) A member of the High Tribunal may resign his position by a public and written declaration delivered to the King or to the First Senator if the King is unavailable.

(11) The King may remove a member of the High Tribunal for High Treason, Bribery, or conviction for any other felony.

(12) A member of the High Tribunal may also be removed by the King for dereliction of duty, malfeasance, or incompetence. A 2/3 vote of each house of the Assembly may prevent removal of a member of the High Tribunal for these reasons.

(13) The King alone has the right of High Justice, which allows him to amend, modify, reduce, or nullify a ruling of any court, including the High Tribunal, or to pardon persons condemned by any court, including the High Tribunal. High Justice does not permit the King to affect his own removal from the throne.

(14) The High Tribunal cannot remove the King from the throne except in accordance with this constitution, nor may the High Tribunal nullify any element of the King’s powers.

Article 35 Royal Courts

(1) The courts below the High Tribunal which administer Crown Justice, called the Royal Courts, are created by Royal Decree.

(2) Royal courts have supreme jurisdiction over matters assigned to them by Royal Decree.

(3) Separate Royal courts shall be established for private law, penal law, and general public law. They shall consist of Provincial Courts, Appellate Courts, and Review Courts for each branch of the Royal Courts.

(4) Any citizen may appeal a ruling of the Royal Courts to the King; the King is free to accept or decline such a request at his pleasure. The King is also free to review the decisions of the Royal Courts at his pleasure.

(5) Decisions of the Royal Courts of Review may be appealed to the High Tribunal.

(6) The High Tribunal decides by extraordinary review in cases of inconsistent application of the law by different Royal courts.

(7) The King must remove Judges of Royal Courts for Treason, Murder, and Bribery or conviction for a felony.

Article 36 Noble Courts

(1) The Lower Courts, or Noble Courts, are created by Noble Decree by the authority of the privileges granted to certain nobles by the King.

(2) Noble Courts are established by Peers and the Gentry of the rank of Baronet and above. Such courts must meet within the territory of their establishing noble. If the noble has no established territory, the court must convene in a space accessible to the citizens for whom the noble is responsible. Noble Courts must meet regularly during times accessible to the citizens of the fiefdom without undue interference with labor or worship and must allot sufficient time for the proper discharge of justice.

(3) The authorizing noble shall preside at their own Noble Court. A qualified representative, as determined by Royal standards, may be appointed by the noble as Judge to preside over and judge each case. The authorizing noble is in all ways responsible for the conduct of his own courts and judges.

(4) Noble Courts have primary jurisdiction over common law, family law, misdemeanors, real estate, property disputes, and all other legal matters not specifically limited to higher courts.

(5) Persons judged by Noble Courts may appeal to the Noble Court of the liege lord of the authorizing noble of their primary trial, if such exists. Such appeals may then proceed to the Royal Courts.

(6) Authorizing nobles have the right of Low Justice over their own courts, allowing them to modify or nullify the verdict of the judges they appoint. The exercise of Low Justice may be appealed as detailed in Article 36, item 5.

Chapter VI The Statement of Rights

Article 37 Basic Rights

(1) The Kingdom acknowledges that all citizens are equal in their basic rights and that such rights are inalienable.

(2) The Kingdom and its government shall guarantee its citizens the rights set forth in this Constitution subject only to the limits defined by legislation necessary in a free and just Kingdom.

Article 38 The Right to Life

(1) The most fundamental of all rights is the Right to Life.

(2) Kingdom shall make no laws that invoke the penalty of death.

(3) No person may assist another in voluntarily ending his or her own life.

(4) In the instance of brain death, as determined by competent medical authority, a person's life may be ended in the following cases;

(a) The person has a written and legally binding will or living will specifically requesting the cessation of artificial life support in case of brain death.

(b) The person's next of kin explicitly requests, in writing, that the person be removed from artificial life support.

(c) In the absence of either a will or a next of kin, the Royal Courts shall appoint a competent person to be the citizen's ward. Within three months of their appointment this ward shall determine, to the best of their ability, if the citizen in question would request removal from artificial life support. This determination will be presented, in writing, to the court of appointment. The court of appointment shall then act upon this decision in a timely manner.

(5) All such termination of artificial life support shall be administered by appropriate medical personnel with full concern for the person’s dignity.

(6) In the absence of a medically determined state of brain death all forms of euthanasia are forbidden.

(7) For purposes of the law life begins at the time of conception. Therefore, abortion is prohibited.

Article 39 The Right to Freedom

(1) The Right to Freedom is considered to be of particular importance to the Kingdom, government, and citizens of the Kingdom of Edan.

(2) The Kingdom shall make no laws that limit the freedom of a person's thought, belief, or religion except where the practice of such beliefs or religion can be demonstrated to endanger others or deprive others of their basic rights. In such cases the practice of such beliefs or religion shall be limited, not the holding of them.

(3) While the official religion of the Kingdom is Catholicism all citizens have equal basic rights in the eyes of the law. Certain positions in the Kingdom may require that their holders must be Catholic, but this shall be restricted to members of the Royal Family, Royal Chaplains and other similar positions.

(4) The Kingdom shall make no law that limits the freedom of speech, except in the case of public order, public morality, sedition, treason, blasphemy, or calumny against the Catholic Church. A person who exercises their freedom of speech is also responsible for the abuse of that right to commit libel, slander and other crimes.

(5) The Kingdom shall make no laws preventing the peaceful assembly of people in public or private, except where such assembly interferes with normal commercial activity or is inherently dangerous to those assembling or to others. Further, groups advocating sedition, treason, murder, or blasphemy are not protected from legal consequences for their statements and actions. No public assembly under arms may be considered peaceful.

(6) The Kingdom shall make no laws limiting the right of the people to organize into associations or political parties, except where; said organizations or political parties use, threaten the use of, or advocate violence against the citizens, nobility, government, or other members or entities of the Kingdom; or where such groups deprive or attempt to deprive other citizens of their basic rights. Further, groups which advocate or commit acts of treason, sedition, blasphemy, or calumny against the Catholic Church are not protected.

(7) No person may be arrested without a warrant issued by a member of the Peerage or a judge except in cases of direct observance of a crime by an agent of the Crown or member of the Peerage. A warrant shall not be issued without probable cause. All warrants must name the place(s) to be searched and the item(s) or person(s) to be seized.

(8) Slavery is forbidden within the Kingdom of Edan, its territories, protectorates, and any other realms controlled by the Kingdom.

(9) No person may be held without being charged with a crime except in times of declared emergency.

(10) Parents have the right and responsibility to determine the course of education for their children. The kingdom shall not limit the rights of parents to educate their own children regardless of the limits of their means and circumstances. The kingdom cannot make public education compulsory. Children should be educated toward a commonly-held minimum standard, regardless of their source of education.

(a) For purposes of reading, the minimum education standard is the ability to understand similes and metaphors and the ability to identify the plot of a four-paragraph narrative in a written document

(b) For purposes of writing, the minimum education standard is the ability to write a grammatically-correct two- to four- paragraph narrative of a situation described by a tester.

(c) For purposes of math, the minimum education standard is the ability to make change and tell time

Article 40 The Right to Dignity

(1) Each and every person has the right to dignity and just treatment. While the Kingdom and its officers cannot provide dignity, the citizens of Edan are equal in the law regardless of income, position, education, religion, origin, or status.

(2) Torture, to include corporal punishment, is forbidden.

(3) Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, nor excessive fines imposed.

(4) The Kingdom and the Law shall respect the privacy of each individual to as great an extent as is possible while still ensuring the safety and security of all citizens. The privacy of an individual, family, group, or any other entity cannot shield them from the investigation of a crime or potential crime. Further, considerations of privacy do not prevent the Kingdom from establishing and enforcing statutes and laws concerning public order, morals, public safety, familial structure, personal morals, and family morals.

(5) Personal property may not be taken without due compensation, except where such confiscation is imposed as a fine by the courts. Such fines may not be excessive. The forfeiture of lands, properties, titles, etc. due to a revocation of a Writ of Entitlement shall never be considered excessive.

(6) All persons accused of a crime shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused must be informed of the accusation. No person shall be forced to testify against him or herself. The accused have the right to confront their accuser(s). No person may be forced to testify against their spouse. Evidence gained in a manner contrary to the laws of the Kingdom or this Constitution shall be inadmissible in court.

(7) Forced labor is forbidden, except as part of a punishment imposed by the courts. Such punitive labor may not be cruel or unusual in its nature or performance.

(8) The Kingdom shall make no laws that discriminate against persons based upon their race.

(9) All accused persons shall receive a trial in a timely manner. All trials will be public unless the courts deem that a public trial will be harmful to defendants, litigants, the Crown, or those who testify. The accused may request a trial by jury; the courts, except the High Tribunal, must honor such a request.

Chapter VII Crimes Against the Kingdom

Article 41 High Crimes

(1) Certain crimes so affect the structure of the Kingdom that they are termed High Crimes. The High Tribunal will try those accused of these crimes.

(2) High Treason is an attempt by a citizen or citizens to overthrow the government of the Kingdom by overt or covert acts, or to kill or injure the King or the Royal Family.

(3) Sedition is the incitement of resistance to or insurrection against the King or the government of the Kingdom. The advocacy of violence against the Royal Family shall also be punished as Sedition.

(4) Perfidy is the intentional breaking of any Oath of Fealty, or falsely entering into such an Oath, by the oath-taker of lower precedence. High Treachery is the same crime committed by a Noble toward a lower-precedence oath-taker.

(5) Blasphemy is any public act, public utterance, or public writing against God with the purpose of dishonoring the Divine Majesty. For the purposes of the law, Blasphemy shall also include sacrilege (the theft, destruction, profanation, or misuse of any holy relic, piece of a sacramental and sanctified altar service, or the holy Eucharist). The mere use of profanity is not the High Crime of Blasphemy in and of itself.

(6) Calumny against the Catholic Church is any public act, public utterance or public writing that is disparaging toward or promotes hatred or contempt of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Saints, the Catholic bible, or Catholic dogma.

(7) Those found guilty of a High Crime may appeal to the King.

(8) People guilty of High Treason, Sedition, Perfidy, or High Treachery may not hold any position within the government of the Kingdom and lose the right to vote. Nobles found guilty of such crimes may be stripped of all titles and lands. The right to vote may be returned after a period of 10 years by an Act of the Assembly, but this is not required. Additional penalties may be imposed by the High Tribunal.

(9) People guilty of Blasphemy or Calumny against the Catholic Church may never hold a place in the judiciary and are barred from the Assembly for 5 years. Further, they lose the right to vote for 5 years. Nobles may be stripped of all lands and titles. Additional penalties may be imposed by the High Tribunal.

Chapter IIX Laws

Article 42 Social Law

(1) A citizen’s gender is determined genetically as male or female and is immutable.

(a) In cases of chromosomal syndromes that make such determination difficult a group of independent medical experts shall make a determination

(b) If the medical board cannot reach a consensus, the person shall be considered female for purposes of the law

(2) Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.

(a) All marriage must be contractual and licensed; ‘common law’ marriage is not permitted

(b)Divorce must be ‘at fault’