‘Rex Non Potest Pecarre’: The King (or Queen) Can Do No Wrong

What are the limits to absolute power?
By Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law & Stephen. L. D'Andrilli
Edited by Brian Anse Patrick

Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama
‘Rex Non Potest Pecarre': The King (or Queen) Can Do No Wrong
Brian Anse Patrick Rise of the Anti-Media
Brian Anse Patrick Rise of the Anti-Media

USA –  -(Ammoland.com)- 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 to evade this American 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!”

 

Read more at http://riseofantimedia.blogspot.com.

10
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
7 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
Eric_CAMark LeeCarlTSgt Bchuck Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Mark Lee
Guest
Mark Lee

“… 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…”

Pretty much sounds like “Affluenza of Power” to me.

Carl
Guest
Carl

John C & Chuck. The real battle is do we continue down Khruchev’s path to communism via Socialism or do we attempt to hold onto our Republic?
The President himself stood at his teleprompter and declared “that’s the way we do things in a DEMOCRACY” ? This from a Constitutional Scholar? My 14 year old Grand Daughter knows we are a Constitutional REPUBLIC. But I’m not surprised when a recent survey of College Graduates named Judge Judy as a member of the Supreme Court. and they vote and that’s why we will lose our Republic.

chuck
Guest
chuck

if hillary is the best the dems. can do they are in deep sh*t

JohnC
Guest
JohnC

If Trump is the best the Republicans can do, it looks real bad.

Doug
Guest
Doug

Hell (did I spell that right?…yep!) to the king/queen!!!

Janek
Guest
Janek

@Tex – The Socialists may have took a beating the last two mid-terms, but Republican inaction only helped solidify their so called “Hope and Change”. And the political pundits in the media wonder how Trump is able to capitalize on all the ‘voter anger’ and possibly channel it into victory in 2016.

Eric_CA
Guest
Eric_CA

When one doesn’t show up to vote, as in 2012, one gets stuck with another turd. Whomever, is the Republican nominee, you still have to vote based on your overall principals.

TEX
Guest
TEX

I don’t think the queen is going to have a throne in 2016 ! Actually the best thing the skank can do is continue to trash the 2A and threaten gun confiscation ! The socialists still don’t seem to understand why they got slaughtered in the mid-terms !

TSgt B
Guest
TSgt B

The ONLY throne this b!tch should have would be a stainless steel one with a flush handle in a prison cell.

Eric_CA
Guest
Eric_CA

I hope you’re right!