Fyraltari watches The Clone Wars (2008) for the first time

[Mechalich]

The Jedi Code ought to preclude devotion to extreme military doctrines along the lines of total war, which would potentially be an impediment to at least the usage of certain tactics (such as the destruction of the supporting civilian industrial base of the enemy). Perhaps ironically, because the Separatist forces are primarily droids, this limitation is heavily mitigated during the Clone Wars.

That said, the Jedi did refrain from certain actions during the Clone Wars that the Separatists did not hesitate to use, especially biological weapons. Tarkin, famously, was a major proponent of the use of mass bombardment of planetary targets - one of the reasons Star Destroyers were so massive was specifically to support the bombardment role, and from a strict tactical perspective the utility of the Death Star was that it could punch bombardment through a planetary shield (we see precisely this method used when Tarkin fires on Scarif at the conclusion of Rogue One).

In Legends, both sides deployed bombardment as a Clone Wars tactic, including extreme Base Delta Zero bombardments that killed everything on the surface of a planet (in terms of population this does exactly the same amount of damage as blowing up the planet using the Death Star, it just takes longer). In Legends the Separatists conducted a Base Delta Zero against the ecumenopolis of Humbarine late in the Clone Wars, killing hundreds of billions in a single attack.

[Fyraltari]

The Jedi Code ought to preclude devotion to extreme military doctrines along the lines of total war, which would potentially be an impediment to at least the usage of certain tactics (such as the destruction of the supporting civilian industrial base of the enemy). Perhaps ironically, because the Separatist forces are primarily droids, this limitation is heavily mitigated during the Clone Wars.

That said, the Jedi did refrain from certain actions during the Clone Wars that the Separatists did not hesitate to use, especially biological weapons.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Keltest]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

With the jedi in particular, their code restricts them a few steps beyond just "don't commit war crimes against civilians" is the thing.

I think the zillo beast is the best example.

[Kornaki]

Biological weapons? Against.... A droid army? I don't really see the point.

[Mechalich]

Biological weapons? Against.... A droid army? I don't really see the point.

The Separatists were not entirely droid forces by any means, and their civilians were organic. The Empire successfully unleashed a biological attack upon Geonosis after the Clone Wars and killed the entire planet (there's a whole plot arc in Rebels about this).

With the jedi in particular, their code restricts them a few steps beyond just "don't commit war crimes against civilians" is the thing.

Ostensibly the Jedi Order should only be fighting in 'just war' one where they can clearly identify a side affiliated with the light versus one affiliated with the dark. An evil empire run by Sith, for instance, is pretty clearly a dark side based foe that it's okay for the Jedi to throw down with. other conflicts are more nebulous and it's not clear that the Jedi order should necessarily get involved at all. In Legends, at least, the Order stood aside from numerous internal political squabbles - such as the seventeen times Coruscant and Alsakan went to war over who got to be the capital - because they believed (probably correctly) that there was no righteous option.

And, as a purely political matter, the choice of thousands of systems to secede from the Republic and the Republic's effort to stop them from doing so is not a conflict the Jedi Order should be involved with. In a very real sense Palaptine, by goading the Jedi into involvement in the first place, has already won from the moment the first sabers are swung on Geonosis. TCW, to its very great credit, absolutely does address the moral degeneration that afflicts the Jedi by being part of this conflict, with the Citadel arc being an early and mild example thereof. At the same time TCW, and essentially every other piece of Clone Wars material ever in both continuities, goes to great lengths to have the Separatists kick all the puppies as a means of justifying Jedi involvement.

[pendell]

I have to wonder whether any of those total destruction planetary bombardments will be shown in the show. It sounds like something someone like Tarkin would order when the Jedi weren't around. But you never know. Maybe a completely robotic factory world would be considered a legitimate target by the Jedi council.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Sapphire Guard]

The Separatists may not be entirely robotic, but the bulk of their forces are, so being indiscriminate in these circumstances has no tactical benefit.

The Separatists are being run by a Sith Lord, so if that's your metric for a just war it's been met. As soon as Obi Wan finds the Clone army on Kamino the Jedi have no choice but to go to war, because his only options are to inform the Senate or not inform the Senate, both of which are inherently taking sides in the war. They can try to stay neutral if they wish, but it's going to go about as well as it did for Belgium.

[pendell]

The Separatists are being run by a Sith Lord, so if that's your metric for a just war it's been met. As soon as Obi Wan finds the Clone army on Kamino the Jedi have no choice but to go to war, because his only options are to inform the Senate or not inform the Senate, both of which are inherently taking sides in the war. They can try to stay neutral if they wish, but it's going to go about as well as it did for Belgium.

The three components of Jus Ad Bellum Are:
1) Legitimate authority.
2) Public declaration.
3) Just Cause.


1 and 3 are easily met. The Republic is a legitimate governing body, perhaps the only legitimate galactic government, at the time of the clone wars. As for the cause, they are fighting against an attempt to resist their authority by armed force. As in the United States, there appears to be no provision for secession from the Republic written into their law, so any attempt to withdraw from the Republic is, ipso facto, an illegitimate act of rebellion which the lawful civil authorities are properly empowered to subdue.

2) Is a bit of a technicality, but since the Separatists publicly declared their independence and moreover attempted to murder several members of the lawful authorities (namely, Anakin and Padme, a Jedi Padawan and a serving senator) in an arena on Geonosis, I'm willing to say that the Separatists started the war by their actions.

For that matter, this is a civil war, not a war between two legitimate states, so the rules about formal declaration are a bit dicey. Governments are allowed to fight rebellions on their own territory without declaring war or, indeed, recognizing that the other side is a legitimate government against whom one can declare war in the first place. That's what they're fighting the war about, after all.

Thus, the war waged by the Republic against the Separatists is a just war. The Defense Rests.

Ironically, one could argue that the later Rebellion against the Empire is an 'unjust' war, by the strict provisions of the rules, since the Empire is the legitimate successor to the Republic, and thus the Rebellion fails under category 1) : Legitimate authority. There is no provision for a minority of senators to overthrow the duly appointed Emperor, appointed by a veto-proof majority of the Senate and, presumably, the people they represent. Doesn't matter that he's a murderer and a space fascist. The precedent is the early Roman Emperors, who were just as bad but were still the lawful authorities, against whom rebellion was illegitimate.

This points to a flaw in just war theory in that there is no provision for revolution built into it. The rules are inherited from the days of Feudalism, and allow barons or dukes or what not to wage war (since they are themselves 'legitimate authorities') but not for ordinary people, commoners. Methinks those rules require a bit of re-thinking because as written they give too much weight to existing governments, making it difficult to revolt even when it is otherwise warranted. In the GFFA , it might mean people signing up for the Imperial Navy because they think they're defending civilization from barbarians, aliens, and all other enemies of law, when in fact the Empire is a greater threat to peace, liberty , and safety than all the pirates in the galaxy put together.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Keltest]

The three components of Jus Ad Bellum Are:
1) Legitimate authority.
2) Public declaration.
3) Just Cause.


1 and 3 are easily met. The Republic is a legitimate governing body, perhaps the only legitimate galactic government, at the time of the clone wars. As for the cause, they are fighting against an attempt to resist their authority by armed force. As in the United States, there appears to be no provision for secession from the Republic written into their law, so any attempt to withdraw from the Republic is, ipso facto, an illegitimate act of rebellion which the lawful civil authorities are properly empowered to subdue.

2) Is a bit of a technicality, but since the Separatists publicly declared their independence and moreover attempted to murder several members of the lawful authorities (namely, Anakin and Padme, a Jedi Padawan and a serving senator) in an arena on Geonosis, I'm willing to say that the Separatists started the war by their actions.

For that matter, this is a civil war, not a war between two legitimate states, so the rules about formal declaration are a bit dicey. Governments are allowed to fight rebellions on their own territory without declaring war or, indeed, recognizing that the other side is a legitimate government against whom one can declare war in the first place. That's what they're fighting the war about, after all.

Thus, the war waged by the Republic against the Separatists is a just war. The Defense Rests.

Ironically, one could argue that the later Rebellion against the Empire is an 'unjust' war, by the strict provisions of the rules, since the Empire is the legitimate successor to the Republic, and thus the Rebellion fails under category 1) : Legitimate authority. There is no provision for a minority of senators to overthrow the duly appointed Emperor, appointed by a veto-proof majority of the Senate and, presumably, the people they represent. Doesn't matter that he's a murderer and a space fascist. The precedent is the early Roman Emperors, who were just as bad but were still the lawful authorities, against whom rebellion was illegitimate.

This points to a flaw in just war theory in that there is no provision for revolution built into it. The rules are inherited from the days of Feudalism, and allow barons or dukes or what not to wage war (since they are themselves 'legitimate authorities') but not for ordinary people, commoners. Methinks those rules require a bit of re-thinking because as written they give too much weight to existing governments, making it difficult to revolt even when it is otherwise warranted. In the GFFA , it might mean people signing up for the Imperial Navy because they think they're defending civilization from barbarians, aliens, and all other enemies of law, when in fact the Empire is a greater threat to peace, liberty , and safety than all the pirates in the galaxy put together.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I would argue that the legitimacy of Palpatine's rule as Emperor is pretty dubious, since he declared himself emperor and enforced it through military might, rather than from any mandate from the people or other actual process. Thunderous Applause aside, nobody was actually asked about changing from a republic to a dictatorship, and though at that point its likely that Palpatine could have gotten himself voted in as Emperor if he really cared, he didnt actually do so.

I have nothing to say about the justness of any given war, fictional or otherwise, but i will gladly debate the legitimacy of the Empire as a government.

[pendell]

I would argue that the legitimacy of Palpatine's rule as Emperor is pretty dubious, since he declared himself emperor and enforced it through military might, rather than from any mandate from the people or other actual process. Thunderous Applause aside, nobody was actually asked about changing from a republic to a dictatorship ...

The technical term for this is "passed by Acclamation". As Discussed . Also see here .

So I think you're misinterpreting the scene. Supreme Chancellor Palpatine proposes legislation (reorganization into the Empire) which is then passed unanimously by acclamation. No need for debate or rules of procedure because the Senate is entirely on board with the action without dissent. As seen in the novelization, Senator Amidala expressly encourages Bail Organa to vote for this as well, because dissenting openly would draw very unwanted attention from the security services.

What we're seeing is a coup d'etat carried out under color of law. Because there are no checks and balances on the Senate's power, and because the Chancellor has an absolutely veto-proof supermajority voting bloc (as seen in the novelization), the establishment of the Empire is legal in the technical sense. Thus, the Empire is the legal and legitimate government, at least in law.

I would argue that the Empire forfeited its claim to legitimacy when it murdered an entire planet for no other reason than as a raw demonstration of its power. So far as Tarkin knew, Leia had divulged the location of the rebel base when threatened with the destruction of Alderaan but did it anyway , because Dantooine was "too remote to make an effective demonstration".

Of course, the Empire's lawyers would point out that there is no provision in law for the overthrow of a government just because one of its functionaries turned out to be a psychopathic murderer. But this is part of the story of the fall of the Republic; it is such a broken system that Palpatine is able to leverage its flaws and contradictions against it, allowing him to not only assume supreme power , but to do so legally and with impunity.

It's a sad state of affairs when the only right course is to overthrow the legal framework because it has deteriorated to such an extent as to enforce the rule of a space fascist and enable his atrocities rather than prevent them, but that is precisely why the Rebellion is necessary. It is, in theory, illegal and unjustified, but in practice that only demonstrates that the theory has some fundamental flaws.

ETA: Ironically, this is exactly the same logic that the Separatists would probably use to justify their secession from the Republic, ruled as it was by a Dark Lord of the Sith who could not be overthrown by the normal course of legal action.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Aeson]

2) Is a bit of a technicality, but since the Separatists publicly declared their independence and moreover attempted to murder several members of the lawful authorities (namely, Anakin and Padme, a Jedi Padawan and a serving senator) in an arena on Geonosis, I'm willing to say that the Separatists started the war by their actions.

While I agree that the Geonosian response was inappropriate, I do not believe that Anakin's status as a Jedi Padawan and Padme's status as a serving Republic Senator can reasonably be considered a legitimate legal shield against facing consequences for their actions on Geonosis. Anakin was expressly instructed to remain on Tatooine by the Jedi Council while in direct communication with them; Padme may be a serving Republic Senator, but she's on a leave of absence and under Jedi protection while the investigation into the assassination attempts continues, consulted neither the Senate nor the Chancellor nor even the government of the planet or sector which she represents before deciding to go to Geonosis to rescue Obi-Wan, and elects to pursue a rather undiplomatic and provocative solution to Obi-Wan's imprisonment.

Obi-Wan Kenobi would probably be a better example, seeing as he went to Geonosis in pursuit of a person of interest to the investigation into the attempted assassination of Senator Amidala after having received explicit authorization from a higher authority to bring that person into custody and was attacked without apparent provocation while making a report to that higher authority. That said, as he is arguably no longer in active pursuit of Jango Fett when he lands on Geonosis, his failure to notify Geonosian authorities of his presence and intentions prior to landing and entering the hive could put him on somewhat shaky grounds, legally speaking.

I would further comment that, given the timing of events within the movie, the Jedi infiltration of the Arena and activation of the clone army were most likely in response to Obi-Wan's imprisonment and imminent execution, not Anakin's or Padme's. The Geonosians trying to put Senator Amidala to death by arena might be a great propaganda piece for the Republic to use in justifying the war to the people, but it occurs too close to the start of the battle to reasonably be construed as the provocation which set the Jedi strike group and the clone army into motion.

[Keltest]

While I agree that the Geonosian response was inappropriate, I do not believe that Anakin's status as a Jedi Padawan and Padme's status as a serving Republic Senator can reasonably be considered a legitimate legal shield against facing consequences for their actions on Geonosis. Anakin was expressly instructed to remain on Tatooine by the Jedi Council while in direct communication with them; Padme may be a serving Republic Senator, but she's on a leave of absence and under Jedi protection while the investigation into the assassination attempts continues, consulted neither the Senate nor the Chancellor nor even the government of the planet or sector which she represents before deciding to go to Geonosis to rescue Obi-Wan, and elects to pursue a rather undiplomatic and provocative solution to Obi-Wan's imprisonment.

Obi-Wan Kenobi would probably be a better example, seeing as he went to Geonosis in pursuit of a person of interest to the investigation into the attempted assassination of Senator Amidala after having received explicit authorization from a higher authority to bring that person into custody and was attacked without apparent provocation while making a report to that higher authority. That said, as he is arguably no longer in active pursuit of Jango Fett when he lands on Geonosis, his failure to notify Geonosian authorities of his presence and intentions prior to landing and entering the hive could put him on somewhat shaky grounds, legally speaking.

I would further comment that, given the timing of events within the movie, the Jedi infiltration of the Arena and activation of the clone army were most likely in response to Obi-Wan's imprisonment and imminent execution, not Anakin's or Padme's. The Geonosians trying to put Senator Amidala to death by arena might be a great propaganda piece for the Republic to use in justifying the war to the people, but it occurs too close to the start of the battle to reasonably be construed as the provocation which set the Jedi strike group and the clone army into motion.

While their participation in the battle was prompted by Kenobi's capture, their participation in the subsequent war was almost certainly justified in part by the Separatist's attacks on legitimate government officials and investigators.

Also, keep in mind that the Jedi have fairly broad authority to act in the name of the Republic. If Obi-wan thinks the Geonocians are complicit (not unreasonable if Jango landed there) then he probably genuinely doesnt need to hail their official government and get permission to investigate, and their subsequent attempted execution is wrongdoing in and of itself.

[pendell]

Great post.

Obi-Wan Kenobi would probably be a better example, seeing as he went to Geonosis in pursuit of a person of interest to the investigation into the attempted assassination of Senator Amidala after having received explicit authorization from a higher authority to bring that person into custody and was attacked without apparent provocation while making a report to that higher authority. That said, as he is arguably no longer in active pursuit of Jango Fett when he lands on Geonosis, his failure to notify Geonosian authorities of his presence and intentions prior to landing and entering the hive could put him on somewhat shaky grounds, legally speaking.

I would argue that he had reason to believe, at this point, that the Geonosian authorities were complicit in Jango Fett's actions and therefore was under no obligation to notify them of his actions or presence, no more than a detective is required to notify the subject of a surveillance activity that a stakeout is planned. So I think he is on legally sound footing. He pursued the subject of an investigation to Geonosis, one whom he was authorized to arrest, and that suspect had fired on him. Then the suspect landed on the planet with which he is apparently on friendly terms. It would be entirely reasonable for an officer with the Jedi's sweeping mandate to land and try to ascertain local conditions rather than immediately pursue the suspect.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Fyraltari]

I'm sorry, but the CIS declaring independence not being legitimate while Palpatine being hailed Emperor is seems contradictory to me. Pretty sure both are equally anticonstitutional.

[dancrilis]

I'm sorry, but the CIS declaring independence not being legitimate while Palpatine being hailed Emperor is seems contradictory to me. Pretty sure both are equally anticonstitutional.

One would need a copy of the document but I suspect that Palpatine (and possibly Sith before him over centuries) got the constitution setup correctly to allow for this to occur.

[pendell]

I'm sorry, but the CIS declaring independence not being legitimate while Palpatine being hailed Emperor is seems contradictory to me. Pretty sure both are equally anticonstitutional.

Does the Republic have a written constitution? I haven't seen one. So far as I can tell, the Senate's powers are absolute. There doesn't appear to be any check or balance on it at all. If they wanted to grant the Separatists their independence, they could do that with a vote. If they want to make the chancellor into an Emperor, they could do that as well. They did the one and didn't do the other.

In the United States, there's a specific procedure in our Constitution for amending or replacing it altogether; it requires either the consent of 2/3rds of both our house and senate at the federal level, OR 2/3rds of the state legislatures. The Republic is simplified; amending their form of government requires only a majority vote. And it appears that , the way Lucas is telling the story, whatever minimum majority is necessary to effect the change Palpatine has.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Keltest]

I'm sorry, but the CIS declaring independence not being legitimate while Palpatine being hailed Emperor is seems contradictory to me. Pretty sure both are equally anticonstitutional.

Especially when you consider that Palpatine was elected in part through implicit threats of violence against the people who didnt vote for him. That delegitimizes the whole thing even if he could have genuinely gotten the motion passed.

[Fyraltari]

One would need a copy of the document but I suspect that Palpatine (and possibly Sith before him over centuries) got the constitution setup correctly to allow for this to occur.

What for? If they win they're legitimate, if they lose they're not. They don't give a Sithspit about a legal document.

Does the Republic have a written constitution? I haven't seen one. So far as I can tell, the Senate's powers are absolute. There doesn't appear to be any check or balance on it at all. If they wanted to grant the Separatists their independence, they could do that with a vote. If they want to make the chancellor into an Emperor, they could do that as well. They did the one and didn't do the other.

If the Senate's power are absolute, then the Senate can't object to part of the Senate deciding to leave.

[pendell]

Especially when you consider that Palpatine was elected in part through implicit threats of violence against the people who didnt vote for him. That delegitimizes the whole thing even if he could have genuinely gotten the motion passed.

That does raise a question: How many people voted because they were afraid, how many voted for him because they genuinely believed it was the right thing to do (Senator Jar Jar introducing the motion to give Palpatine emergency powers in the first place comes to mind) , how many did it because Palpatine bought them, and how many simply went along with the flow ?

I think it takes away from the story to imply that the ONLY reason Palpatine won the vote was because he threatened people. That was certainly part of it, but I'm not convinced that was the only trick he had up his sleeve. I think he was an accomplished politician who got where he was by pretending to be the Virtuous Hero of the Republic. This is sometimes a weakness of the movies in that we see . from third person omniscient perspective, what he really is; but his dark secret side was something very, very few people in the GFFA ever saw. If you get your news from the Holonet, you're going to believe Palpatine is a hero and the Jedi are traitors to the Republic. So I believe that the vast majority of those who voted him in as Emperor did so not out of fear but out of conviction. Palpatine was a master of propaganda and politics as well as of terror.

But that will remain a matter of speculation, I think. If you want to believe that it was primarily his extralegal violence and his shadowy collection of murderers and bounty hunters who put him over the top, there's precious little evidence in canon to gainsay the theory.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[dancrilis]

What for? If they win they're legitimate, if they lose they're not. They don't give a Sithspit about a legal document.

It is easier to win a legal maneuver when the law is on your side.

Had the people of the galaxy thought that Palpatine had seized power through illegal means it is possible that there would have been a lot more rebellion across the empire and at ever level of government.

To my knowledge nowhere in either canon has it been suggested that Palpatine broke the law by declaring The Empire.

[Keltest]

That does raise a question: How many people voted because they were afraid, how many voted for him because they genuinely believed it was the right thing to do (Senator Jar Jar introducing the motion to give Palpatine emergency powers in the first place comes to mind) , how many did it because Palpatine bought them, and how many simply went along with the flow ?

I think it takes away from the story to imply that the ONLY reason Palpatine won the vote was because he threatened people. That was certainly part of it, but I'm not convinced that was the only trick he had up his sleeve. I think he was an accomplished politician who got where he was by pretending to be the Virtuous Hero of the Republic. This is sometimes a weakness of the movies in that we see . from third person omniscient perspective, what he really is; but his dark secret side was something very, very few people in the GFFA ever saw. If you get your news from the Holonet, you're going to believe Palpatine is a hero and the Jedi are traitors to the Republic. So I believe that the vast majority of those who voted him in as Emperor did so not out of fear but out of conviction. Palpatine was a master of propaganda and politics as well as of terror.

But that will remain a matter of speculation, I think. If you want to believe that it was primarily his extralegal violence and his shadowy collection of murderers and bounty hunters who put him over the top, there's precious little evidence in canon to gainsay the theory.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I personally suspect that by that point he had ousted enough dissenting voices via the Clone Wars that he probably could have gotten the vote through without the implicit threat of violence. But that the threat was there anyway delegitimizes it.

[dancrilis]

I personally suspect that by that point he had ousted enough dissenting voices via the Clone Wars that he probably could have gotten the vote through without the implicit threat of violence. But that the threat was there anyway delegitimizes it.

I am not sure that an implicit threat of violence does delegitimizes things.

For instance:
Palpatine: I would like to know I can rely on your vote in the upcoming declaration of Empire.
Senator 1: My planet is experiencing a famine - we need help.
Palpatine: All the more reason to vote for me quickly I can then move with haste to get your people what they need.
Senator 1: I'm not sure about this Empire stuff.
Palpatine: I fully understand but I will need to consolidate power afterwards and so resources will need to be allocated to areas I know are loyal - in case of problems, you understand?
Senator 1: I do and ah what about those seen as less loyal?
Palpatine: They and their issues will of course be dealt with as time allows.
Senator 1: Well I will of course support you - Happy Empire Day.
Palpatine: Happy Empire Day.

The implicit message is that if Senator 1 does not vote for Palpatine that their people will starve, and a secondard more subtle threat that the Senator themselves might be harmed - but I doubt there would be anything illegal about that conversation.

[Sapphire Guard]

The legal system of the Galactic Republic is going to be orders of magnitude more complex than anything we can understand, so legal argument isn't going to get us very far.

We don't know if Palps called a vote to declare himself Emperor or not. But he did exterminate the people that were most likely to oppose it, which is at least questionable.

[Jasdoif]

Sobek is both surprisingly competent and strikingly dumb. Like he manages to predict their moves but then he goes to make some really idiotic mistakes.

I like to think am amused by the scenario that Sobek was assigned there primarily to redesign the entire security system into something centralized and thus more easily managable, as the original design was more worried about "fallen" Jedi persuading the entire complex from within than it was with external threats; and the decision to hold Piell came in the middle of it and involved Sobek telling Dooku "we shall double our efforts" at some point....which is why nothing really works together properly, Sobek is terrified whenever Dooku comes calling, and why Sobek appears to have a skillset good at reaching conclusions but bad at taking advantage of them.

Today's entry in "stuff that could've helped the episodes' flow, if minor details had hinted at it".

[pendell]

The legal system of the Galactic Republic is going to be orders of magnitude more complex than anything we can understand, so legal argument isn't going to get us very far.

We don't know if Palps called a vote to declare himself Emperor or not. But he did exterminate the people that were most likely to oppose it, which is at least questionable.

Not to mention, he also disenfranchised a significant minority by tricking them into attempting secession. As a result, none of their representatives were present in the Senate when the motion to create the Empire was adopted.

In the Ep. III novelization, Count Dooku noted that it wasn't a coincidence so many of the Separatists were non-human factions such as the Techno Union or the Trade Federation. The intent was to create a human-dominated Empire in which the other peoples would have second-class citizenship at best. Not only did this plan mean these nonhuman actors would no longer have a voice in the Senate, it also gave the Republic the pretext it needed to destroy them, break them and confiscate their assets, under color of law.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Mechalich]

Does the Republic have a written constitution? I haven't seen one. So far as I can tell, the Senate's powers are absolute. There doesn't appear to be any check or balance on it at all. If they wanted to grant the Separatists their independence, they could do that with a vote. If they want to make the chancellor into an Emperor, they could do that as well. They did the one and didn't do the other.

There was a Galactic Constitution, but it was extremely dated by the time of the Clone Wars, being either thousands of years old or 25,000 years old. In Legends, the Republic, at the time Palpatine turned it into an Empire, was governed by the Ruusan Reformations, passed by Tarsus Valorum at the conclusion of the New Sith Wars (the Russan Reformations were added into the Disney canon recently without any details, but generally the Legends versions remains more or less accurate in cases like this).

The Ruusan Reformations were effectively a new constitution and the Republic from 1,000 BBY onward represented a clear legal break from the Republic that preceded it even though it retained the same name (this sort of thing happens to real-world countries all the time, which is why the United States is technically the oldest nation on Earth). The Ruusan Reformations were clearly written legislation, but we don't know a whole lot about what they actually stated, and most of what we do know is about how they affected the Jedi Order, not the Republic government.

With regard to the issue of secession, the Legends novel The Approaching Storm strongly implies that a planet could vote to secede if it wished at any time, since the entire plot is about preventing the citizens of the planet Ansion from voting to do exactly that

We don't know if Palps called a vote to declare himself Emperor or not. But he did exterminate the people that were most likely to oppose it, which is at least questionable.

Actual, we do know the process. Palpatine passed a proclamation called the Proclamation of a New Order (Disney) or Declaration of a New Order (Legends). The Legends version has the full text and also called for the passage of a new constitution, the Imperial Charter.

The veneer of legality behind Palpatine's conversion of the Republic into the Empire is actually quite strong, it's just that the preceding acts that led to this point involved a conspiracy of decades or even centuries of bribery, extortion, fraud, murder, and more to produce the supermajority necessary that allowed such actions to go unchallenged.

[Fyraltari]

The Ruusan Reformations were effectively a new constitution and the Republic from 1,000 BBY onward represented a clear legal break from the Republic that preceded it even though it retained the same name (this sort of thing happens to real-world countries all the time, which is why the United States is technically the oldest nation on Earth).

State(s), not nation. Also, San Marino has them beaten by one hundred and seventy-six years, sorry.

[Mechalich]

State(s), not nation. Also, San Marino has them beaten by one hundred and seventy-six years, sorry.

I like to think that the 'not counting puny microstates' caveat is built in.

[Fyraltari]

I like to think that the 'not counting puny microstates' caveat is built in.

Sounds arbitrary.

[Sapphire Guard]

Wait, what disqualifies the UK?

You could say the act of Union makes a new entity, but by that logic, the modern US is very very different from the 13 colonies.