“REX
NON POTEST PECARRE”: THE KING CAN DO NO WRONG
What
are the limits to absolute power?
by
Roger Katz, Attorney at Law
Stephen L. D’Andrilli
Edited by Brian Anse Patrick
Historically
English monarchs wielded absolute power over the conduct and the lives of the
populace – subjects – in their realm.
The
famous English jurist William Blackstone developed a rationale for the
legitimacy of the Monarch, going so far as to say that the King not only is
incapable of doing wrong, but is incapable of even thinking that he can do
wrong.
In
essence this means that subjects of the realm have no redress in law for
alleged wrongs. The King has absolute immunity. A circular argument was offered
in way of explanation. Subjects have no redress because the idea that redress
is necessary presumes the King could do wrong and has committed a wrong for
which redress is required. Since the King can do no wrong, no wrong could be committed
that would require redress. Even if a subject dared claim the King committed wrong,
the King has absolute immunity anyway. And woe to that person who would claim
the King had wronged him.
What does
all this have to do with here and now in America under a system of government described
as a Free Republic? After all, to negate the possibility of our government
resembling the English monarchic system, the founders of our Republic created a
tripartite of government, so that law-making functions, executive functions,
and judicial functions were not concentrated in any one individual or group.
Powers of each branch of were carefully demarcated.
In this
light, recent actions of the President Barack Obama and the proposed actions of
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton stand as attempts evade this America
system of checks and balances against absolute power and return to the
absolutism of the monarch.
Probably
the most disturbing aspect of Barack Obama-style governance is his claim to act
in accordance with his personal notions of what is right. Through absolutist executive
orders President Obama has rewritten laws governing immigration and firearms
regulation, claiming that he is not making law, only implementing law that
Congress has itself made.
Regarding
immigration, President Obama would have the American people believe that his
immigration orders are not an unlawful encroachment on the singular authority
of Congress “to
establish an uniform rule of naturalization” under Article 1, Section 8 of the
U.S. Constitution.
Regarding gun rights, President Obama alleges that his recent executive
directives redefining what it means “to be in the business of selling firearms,” are neither an unlawful constraint and
infringement on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” under
the Second Amendment, nor
an unlawful encroachment on the sole authority of Congress “To make all Laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the
United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof,” under
Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
President
Obama claims that his kingly directives do not involve the making of law but
consist only in acting within the authority of Article 2, Section
3 of the Constitution, which
says that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” But Obama punctuates these edicts with
his claim “when
Congress doesn’t act, I will when it is the right thing to do.” This latter remark seems to hark back to
the antique doctrine that the King is absolute because in the person of the king lies
unimpeachable moral and legal authority.
Commentators
have described President Obama’s misuse of executive orders as “executive
overreach.” His directives,
however, go beyond mere overreach and assert a kingly prerogative. His actions erode
the sanctity of a free Republic.
The
designated heir of the Obama dynasty is Hillary Clinton. Instead of a King we
apparently are to have a Queen, who appears every bit as imperious as her
predecessor. Mrs. Clinton’s lack of unaccountability and history of evasion
suggests that she too claims the royal prerogative of being beyond all possible
blame.
To anyone
who might complain Mrs. Clinton would likely say, as she said to those who
challenged her botched handling of the Benghazi incident: “What difference does
it make?” After all, “The Queen can do no wrong!”
_________________________________________
