Elaine and the Summer Court

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

We have not seen enough Senior Council and White Council rulings and debates to properly form a concrete opinion of can the White Council overule the Senior Council. I would speculate that there is a way to remove Senior Council members who go above and beyond in pissing off the White Council rank and file Wizards.

And that would be entirely speculation.

. Remember, it was also stated that the Wardens would not stand for both Luccio and Morgan being found guilty of being traitors and executed.

Which seems to me again on the "civil war" scale of political dissent.

There has to be some checks and balances such as the Blackstaff unchecked could just do as he pleases such as kill etc.

To my mind, if you regard there as being a benefit to having someone on your team outside the law, putting any checks and balances on them at all invalidates the point.

I feel he could be removed from that office with enough of the SC or WC voting against him, perhaps 2/3rds majority. For an organization as the WC to survive for centuries there has to be a way to remove the rare idiot or power hungry corrupted dark lord from a position.

Presuming a wizard can survive to SC eligibility while being an idiot or a dark lord.  I see nothing to indicate idiots or dark lords making even the regular White Council; being a wizard takes a certain minimum amount of skill and power not really compatible with idiocy, and nor can I easily see dark lord material making it that far untainted.

The Merlin hurt his rep and powerbase when he went against Harry.

I don't believe this; we have no evidence at all that it is the case.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

  The Merlin pretty much has his way most of the time, but not all of the time, thus Harry's getting the general Council's backing at Molly's trial was very important, an political victory for him and totally pissed off the Merlin.

I do not see how you can possibly call it "very important" when it did not make a blind bit of difference.

[Gman]

And that would be entirely speculation.

Which seems to me again on the "civil war" scale of political dissent.

To my mind, if you regard there as being a benefit to having someone on your team outside the law, putting any checks and balances on them at all invalidates the point.

Presuming a wizard can survive to SC eligibility while being an idiot or a dark lord.  I see nothing to indicate idiots or dark lords making even the regular White Council; being a wizard takes a certain minimum amount of skill and power not really compatible with idiocy, and nor can I easily see dark lord material making it that far untainted.

I don't believe this; we have no evidence at all that it is the case.

Yes, I am speculating Neurovore just as you do frequently, but what I am stating is logical. Some of your theories are highly unlikely. Sorry, I do strongly disagree with you about positions having limitations such as the Blackstaff which is someone that can violate the Law. I will cite examples in real life such as the position of the King's Hand. It was someone who could carry out almost anything to take care of threats to the King or Kingdom. He would do things that the King could not officially acknowledge such as threats and assignations or spying, bribing etc. There are secret agents like the fictional James Bond that had a license to kill. They could violate all sorts of laws such as travel to sovereign nations and spy and assassinate enemies and are granted much leeway and latitude. Yet if these people went rouge or did things too off the wall or turned traitor they were removed from office, arrested or more likely killed. Remember, even with a 1/3 minority supporting Cristos, he got a seat on the Senior Council with the threat of succeeding from the WC. There are checks and balances and it is unlikely JB will try to fill in every blank in the Dresdenverse or paint himself in a corner such as you have argued about who God or the White God really is. It is sometimes better to be a little vague on some things or you will get plot conflicts (5 books in the future) such as the Archive knowing everything (too powerful) or just knowing everything written and recorded. I feel my theory that there are some unknown checks and balances is a more likely theory than your theory that there are NONE. Would you care to prove your theory?

[Big daddy rakshasa85]

If A is possible and B is also possible, I will argue as strongly against someone saying A has to be true and B not as vice versa.

I like to debate a lot, but I'm mostly not arguing about what I believe, I'm arguing about where there's reasonable doubt.

...

Isabel? Is that you? :0

[Mira]

I do not see how you can possibly call it "very important" when it did not make a blind bit of difference.

 Molly's living or death?  Makes a difference to her and her family.  Relationship with the Knights?  Um, they do make a difference.  The fact that Harry was able to get a trial for Molly when none had been held since he had gone one trial as a kid is significant.  The possible idea behind allowing it to go on, since the Merlin wanted to teach Harry a lesson in many respects after their exchange when the Korean kid died, but instead he was a bit humiliated by a mere kid of a wizard, is significant.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Yes, I am speculating Neurovore just as you do frequently, but what I am stating is logical. Some of your theories are highly unlikely.

Perhaps. but they have their own logic.

Sorry, I do strongly disagree with you about positions having limitations such as the Blackstaff which is someone that can violate the Law. I will cite examples in real life such as the position of the King's Hand. It was someone who could carry out almost anything to take care of threats to the King or Kingdom. He would do things that the King could not officially acknowledge such as threats and assignations or spying, bribing etc. There are secret agents like the fictional James Bond that had a license to kill. They could violate all sorts of laws such as travel to sovereign nations and spy and assassinate enemies and are granted much leeway and latitude. Yet if these people went rouge or did things too off the wall or turned traitor they were removed from office, arrested or more likely killed.

I don't see the relevance of your real-life example.  You might as well compare the position of Blackstaff with the swords in China - Manchu dynasty I think - given to people as an honour that meant they were entirely outside the law - and following which it was then perfectly legal for them to go as off the wall as they liked.

I feel my theory that there are some unknown checks and balances is a more likely theory than your theory that there are NONE. Would you care to prove your theory?

If it were provable, it would not be a theory; theories are only disprovable, and I still feel that a Blackstaff with checks and balances is right back in the position of a wizard who has to obey the laws; any constraint at all can be hacked to work against the person constrained if the enemy is smart and ruthless enough.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Isabel? Is that you? :0

I am not an Isabel, fwiw.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Molly's living or death?  Makes a difference to her and her family.  Relationship with the Knights?  Um, they do make a difference.  The fact that Harry was able to get a trial for Molly when none had been held since he had gone one trial as a kid is significant.  The possible idea behind allowing it to go on, since the Merlin wanted to teach Harry a lesson in many respects after their exchange when the Korean kid died, but instead he was a bit humiliated by a mere kid of a wizard, is significant.

That was not my point, sorry if I was unclear.

My point is, I do not think you have much ground for saying that Harry getting the General Council's backing was "very important" when it did nothing to save Molly; Molly was saved by the gatekeeper's delay and then the return of the r4est of the Senior Council and Michael.

I think this is one more piece of relevant evidence that the Senior Council run things pretty much as they like.

[Gman]

If it were provable, it would not be a theory; theories are only disprovable, and I still feel that a Blackstaff with checks and balances is right back in the position of a wizard who has to obey the laws; any constraint at all can be hacked to work against the person constrained if the enemy is smart and ruthless enough.

A likely check and balance is that if he does something too off the wall there is a vote by the SC and a 2/3 majority can remove him from office or they could kill him. Are you stating that if the Blackstaff decides to start killing WC members for fun the SC and Wardens would say he's the Blackstaff and we can't do anything about it? I am not stating that he has to do a mother may I to take care of business or every action he takes gets reviewed.

[Heretic]

Presumably, the Senior Council made the rule that the Blackstaff can break the Laws; they can always change their own rule.  In practical terms, if the Blackstaff angers or scares enough of the SC, they'll rein him in regardless of technicalities.  Might cause a problem convincing a new person to step into the role, but that's a separate matter.

[MijRai]

Presumably, the Senior Council made the rule that the Blackstaff can break the Laws; they can always change their own rule.  In practical terms, if the Blackstaff angers or scares enough of the SC, they'll rein him in regardless of technicalities.  Might cause a problem convincing a new person to step into the role, but that's a separate matter.

Except for the fact that the Blackstaff (according to Eb) was given the right to flout the Council's orders. They ordered him to kill Harry at the slightest sign of rebellion. We know he isn't dead. And we know (from Harry's mouth) that he was 'rebellious'. And he has the Blackstaff itself. Eb could probably kill the entire Senior Council by himself, if only because of that. He could just summon a few Outsiders, make a necromantic army or two, and bring the earth itself against them, with no repercussions, while they are limited by the Laws he can break. He could even go to the past and destroy them before they were born.

[Gman]

Except for the fact that the Blackstaff (according to Eb) was given the right to flout the Council's orders. They ordered him to kill Harry at the slightest sign of rebellion. We know he isn't dead. And we know (from Harry's mouth) that he was 'rebellious'. And he has the Blackstaff itself. Eb could probably kill the entire Senior Council by himself, if only because of that. He could just summon a few Outsiders, make a necromantic army or two, and bring the earth itself against them, with no repercussions, while they are limited by the Laws he can break. He could even go to the past and destroy them before they were born.

Yes, the Blackstaff can flout the Council's orders on occasion. Would the WC just sit by and let themselves be killed one at a time if the Blackstaff whent nuts or would they remove him from office or the living if they felt the dire need. There is a difference between sometimes being independent and being a threat.  I guess Kemmler broke all the rules and the WC took him out eventually. I'm guessing the BS is allowed to break the rules but only for the right reasons, which is to go after the enemies of the WC whom they normally would have trouble getting playing by the rules.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Yes, the Blackstaff can flout the Council's orders on occasion. Would the WC just sit by and let themselves be killed one at a time if the Blackstaff whent nuts or would they remove him from office or the living if they felt the dire need.

The solution here is that the Council does not appoint people Blackstaff who will do that.

[Gman]

The solution here is that the Council does not appoint people Blackstaff who will do that.

And the Council never makes mistakes such as having Justin the Warlock as a Warden.

[DragonFire]

And the Council never makes mistakes such as having Justin the Warlock as a Warden.

You can't control your assasin so tightly...it loses you the denability you want when you disavow his actions.

By virtue of the fact that they set him basically beyond their authority, I don't think the rule can be changed.