If he had, he might have come across the story of King Charles I, who was a big fan of the doctrine known as the divine right of kings.
He ended up fighting the armies of both the English and Scottish parliaments in the First English Civil War. He was taken prisoner and handed over to the English parliament, where he spurned demands to embrace a constitutional monarchy.He refused to plead, declaring the trial was illegal because “no learned lawyer will affirm that an impeachment can lie against the king”.
Still, Charles I and the divine right of kings came to mind when the six Conservative judges of the US Supreme Court used their superior numbers to declare a former president cannot be prosecuted for official acts taken during his term in office. It seemed a distance from the opening words of the second paragraph of the US Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”At least one of them, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, made it clear she had done her reading on the divine right of kings and the Declaration of Independence.Bloomberg
“To say that someone is immune from criminal prosecution is to say that, like a king, he ‘is not under the coercive power of the law’, which ‘will not suppose him capable of committing a folly, much less a crime’.” With the US Democratic Party having negligently placed all their bets to this stage on Joe Biden – who will turn 82 in November, the cruelty of years and his decline painfully clear – a new Trump presidency cannot be wished or laughed away.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: 9NewsAUS - 🏆 10. / 72 Read more »
Source: FinancialReview - 🏆 2. / 90 Read more »
Source: SBSNews - 🏆 3. / 89 Read more »
Source: SBSNews - 🏆 3. / 89 Read more »
Source: SBSNews - 🏆 3. / 89 Read more »
Source: brisbanetimes - 🏆 13. / 67 Read more »