Great Falls tribune., 1921-08-11
The King Can Do No
Wrong

in the old doctrine Of the divine
right of the king to rule. 1t was
supported by the church ana
acknowledged by the law. All law
proceeds from the king and has his
sanction. Therefore the king is the
original source of law and above
all law. That used to be the
logical course of argument a tew
hundred years ago when the di-
vine right of kings to rule and
make laws for their subjects was
taken literally and seriously. That
idea has long passed away in Eng
land. but the maxim remains. and
the king is still identified with the
lsw and as part of it in the legal
procedure of Great Britain. All
legal processes run in the name OF
the king. Witnesses are summoned
TO court by command of the king.
Arrests are made in his name, ap-
pointments to office and army and
navy commissions are made in his
name. The king under the British
theory of law being the head of the
law and part of it, he is exempt
from arrest through the ordinary
channels of law enforcement,
though he has been arrested and
even executed by order of parlia-
ment. However in that single case
of Charles ] it may be said that
his people we're in rebellion against
him because of violations OF their
rights and privileges through royal
orders which he held to be Of sup
erior authority to parliamentary
laws enacted in due form and
signed by him under duress. as he
alleged.
The United States when it re-
VOTED from the authority of the
sovereign and the parliament OF
Great Britain and secured its own
independence as nation, after
long war. adopted English law, ex-
cept where it made specific altera-
tions or changes by constitutional
or statutory enactment, and it was
provided that where such changes
were not made, the common law OF
England applied in the United
States. That was natural. We
were used to these laws, had lived
under them, and had found them on
the whole satisfactory. Regarding
the king as the head of the law, we
simply substituted the people joint
ly as the sovereign power and
every voting citizen as part of
the sovereignty. Hence the ex-
preston often used by the politi-
cian when he wishes to flatter the
sovereign citizen" Every
voting citizen is king in part.
That is, he is part of the national
Every state is also
sovereign power with all the rights
Of a sovereign nation, except as it
has voluntarily divested itself of
such powers, and vested them in
the central government at Wash
Ington. As to the technical matter
Of the doctrine Of the immunity of
the king from arrest because the
King can do no wrong III the eyes
Of the law, the trainers of the con-
5titution certainly did consider this
phase Of British law theory, and
transferred it in part to the chief
executive of the United States and
he chief executives of the sover-
eign states as the Representatives
If the sovereign citizens. But they
lid this only in part and for short
time. The president Of the United
States, congressman, and many
other federal officials are exempt
ed from arrest while in official
discharge of their duties" Many
states have copied this provision of
he federal constitution and made
t part of the state constitutions
also. We assume that such is the
,ase in the state of Illinois.
Now there is considerable room
:or argument as to just when the
president or the governor of a
state is "in discharge Of his
official duties" It is evid%nt that
he trainers Of the constitution
which conveys such protection to
he chief executor of the laws of
he sovereign citizens did not be-
ieve that he was SO discharging his
luty all the time, or they would
ot have limited his exemption to
period while he was so discharg-
ng official duties. Clearly he is
ot diseharging such official duties
S the executor of the sovereign :
,ill Of the voter while he is eating