During the last week the president of the United States compared himself to a king.
Of course, it was intended to be a joke – not in the sense of being funny, but in the sense of saying something without any adverse consequences.
But what struck me when he said it is that this is exactly sees power: that all power – executive, legislative, judicial – flows from him, and is ultimately exercisable by him. He wants to block laws and ignore court orders at will.
As such he does see himself as an absolute ruler.
In the United Kingdom – or at least in England – the theory is that while all power flows from the Crown, it is institutionalised so that the legislature legislates (as the “Crown-in-Parliament”) and the courts adjudicate (including in the Royal Courts of Justice).
But.
The “founding fathers” who devised the United States constitution rejected this approach – for them, the executive, legislature, judiciary each derived their powers separately from the constitution document itself – and not from the executive.
Trump’s approach is a flat contradiction to this codified constitutional arrangement.
I have written more about this over at Prospect – please click and read here.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3441a/3441af8f511699bdffe09a82cf1b7309e8350881" alt=""
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
Is it monarchy for life – on the lines of the Venetian doge – or hereditary monarchy?
A good question: indeed a very good question.
Or as Tom Paine put it alongside the US founding fathers in 1776: ‘The law is king, not the king is law’.
Well, in these times one lives in hope.
The last time the americans had a king they had a revolution.
They do say history repeats itself….