Morrison says there is no statute nor precident in trying a king. A nation can declare a magistrate inviolate, where he cannot be indicted while in office and if he commit any crime , he can suffer no punishment but discharge. The penal code had no provision to deal withthe king, furthermore there is no unbiased jury in which to judge a king. Louis violate the consitiution and now wishes to take advantage of a consitiution he never adopted. . What is the Girondin position on the trial of the king, as expressed by Condorcet? The king cannot be punishedand judged. Yet the king was guilty of amassing debt, arming enemies of France and ruining the credit of the nation. The Girondin did not believe the king to be "inviolable", that is he should be made to suffer for his actions against the nation. He, the king, was responsible for what his deputies did on his authority. As the the impartiallity of a jury, where the king could have no impartial jury, this would take the king out of reach of law. He was , in fact, a citizen of France and subject to all the laws and possible punishments of any citizen of France guilty of such atrocities.
Morrison goes about defending the kingship in an interesting way. He recognizes his views are not accepted by the majority. Morrison acknowledges that Louis the XVI did commit atrocities and his first impulse is to punish the King extensively. However, for the greater good of society he will not act on his impulses and asked the majority to do the same.
Morrison's defense is focused around the idea of whether the King can even be judged and whether it is in the best interest of the Republic that he be judged. According to the Constitution of 1791 Louis the XVI was legally immune to punishment. At the time these crimes were committed Louis XVI was protected by the Constitution of 1791.
Morrison recognized that the Constitution of 1791 was obsolete, disorderly, and unreasonable at this point in time. However, it was the piece of work which governed society during the time in these crimes took place, thus, acting as the sounding board on how to proceed with the King. Morrison also reminds the Convention that Louis XVI ministers were responsible for each one of the Kings departments. Morrison argues the King could not be punished for his exercise of executive power since his ministers were in fact the ones responsible (181). This would make it easy for the King to focus blame on his various agents instead of himself. Trying the King put the Revolution at risk. If the King was found innocent the Revolutionary movement could be found guilty; a risk which weighed heavily on many minds.
1. Morrison defends the right of kingship by quoting the Constitution by saying, "The person of the king is inviolable and sacred" (180). He believes that even though he knows that what the king did was wrong, that they have to ignore their angry thoughts of wanting to execute him and stick to what the Constitution states they should do. In other words, the Constitution, "the penal code has no provision which may be applied to Louis XVI,..."(180). They can't judge Louis XVI because there is no law for this.
2. The Girondin's position on the trial of the king is as stated, "The other[article] declared that for all crimes committed after his legal abdication, he would be judged like other citizens..."(184). They also state that, "Finally, a man cannot demand favorable conditions for a contract which he did not carry out, or which he openly breached" (187). Here, the Girondins are referring to Louis XVI's openly dislike of the Constitution and how he didn't honor it. They find it hypocritical that the king should now acknowledge what the Constitution states when he didn't accept it before.
1.Morrison defends the right of kingship by examining whether or not the people even have the authority to make a decision of this magnitude. No law exists by which to judge the king and even though the law states that a citizen who betrays his country must be put to death there is no provision that targets the king exclusively. If one is to refer to the constitution the king is inviolable and sacred and cannot be classified as a citizen unless he abdicates his throne and Louis XVI did not meet the criteria for abdication. Morrison believes that the correct course of action against the king is to force him to give up his throne and call a National Convention, these actions have already been taken and there is no more that needs to be done.
Morrison's argument centered around the "inviolability" of the King as set forth in the Constitution. He was adament that the previous Constitution, which was in effect at the time of the King's crimes, was the written law that had to be used to determine the King's punishment. However, because the document declared the King as inviolable and sacred, there was no punishment which could be legally rendered to the King.
In addition, the Constitution contained verbage that, after abdication, the king would be a "normal" citizen and could not be tried for any crimes committed before his abdication. Morrison explains that from the moment the Convention abolished the monarchy, Louis had stopped being king. But, he could not be tried for any crimes that occurred during his monarchy. In fact, Morrison says that Louis received the only punishment that was available, which was the dissolution of the monarchy.
2.The Girondins maintain that the king has been given every possible legal avenue that is opened and upheld by enlightened men. They use the fact that the law does not specify the king to their advantage stating that he should then be treated as if her were like any other French citizen. They use the fact that the Constitution was never enacted to counter the fact that the king was declared inviolable and sacred, and that for all crimes committed after his legal abdication, he would be judged like all other citizens. Most of all the Girondins maintain that the king cannot legitimately expect to be protected by a document that he never truly endorsed or believed in.
The argument by the Marquis de Condorcet centered around his belief that, just because there was not a law that specifically excluded the actions of the King, he was not automatically exempt from legal consequence. Understanding that the previous law did not address the situation, Condorcet explained that the King should be judged by the usual law. In addition, Condorcet mentions that the Constitution did not define "inviolable" as it applies to the King. Condorcet's remarks make it clear that he, along with his Girondin contemporaries, firmly believed that Louis XVI must be judged for his crimes.
Johanna Gotay 1. How does Morrison defend the right of kingship?
Charles-Francois-Gabriel Morrison defends the right of kingship by imposing questions to the committee: can the king by judged, is it in the interest of the Republic that he be judged, do we not have the right to take, with respect to him, measures for the general safety, finally what ought these measures to be? He states “kingship has sacred limits, that the people must resist their natural impulses and suspend all actions the better to weigh the consequences.” He believes that a king “cannot be indicted while in office and if he commit any crime, he can suffer no punishment but discharge.” Similarly he believes that their is no statute that exists to judge the king. That as citizens “they are religiously ruled by law; coolly, as impassive judges, we consult our penal code.” He believes the Constitution is a contradictory to the first principles of social order but nevertheless it governed the country. With that being said, the Constitution states that the king is inviolable and sacred, that he can be abdicated but not for crimes during his kingship. The Constitution therefore protects the king and Morrison asks the committee to obey the laws of the Constitution of the people. In summary he believes that their is no law which can be applied to Louis XVI and that he has already paid for his crimes. Monarchy is dead in France and that is enough of a sentence, their is no need to judge the king.
Johanna Gotay 2. What is the Girondin position on the trial of the king, as expressed by Condorcet?
Marquis de Condorcet expresses that “it is time to teach kings that the silence of the law about their crimes is the ill consequence of their power, and not the will of reason or equity.” They believe the king should be judged by the “usual law, if another law did no specifically exclude him.” He reject the inviolability of the king and the deputies and believes they should also be tried by the usual law. Lastly, he believes the framers of the Constitution could not add a method to which the king be judged because it was not its duty. His theory is that the National Assembly had the right to judge the king and this is why the Constitution never mentioned it. Overall, his position on the trial of the king is that he be put on trial and be judged for his crimes.
How does Morrison defend the right of kingship? He questions whether the people have the power to judge the king. He says the people have sovereign will but not the power to be justice dictates. He then says there are no statues which apply to him and there are none on the books. The law (penal code) says that anyone who betrays their country should be put to death. Louis betrayed his country but the Constitution grants him immunity. The person of the king is inviolable and sacred. To the counter argument the king is inviolable only by virtue of the Constitution; the Constitution is no more and his inviolability has ceased with it. What holds true for laws in general is true for the Constitution. With the exception of those portions which have been negated by laws or acts posterior to it, such as the elimination of the monarchy and the establishment of the Republic, the Constitution stands. Finally, the king was head of his council but everything was done in his name by his ministers. Our powers ceased when the king was king no longer. The foundation of the Republic and the suppression of monarchy are in no way a statutory judgment against Louis XVI, and are in no way a punishment directed against him as a man. Finally there is no further preexisting law which might be applied to Louis XVI, there may be no further sentence passed against him.
What is the Girondin position on the trial of the king, as expressed by Condorcet? An action can be grounds for legitimate punishment only if a previous law defined that action expressly as a crime; and it can be punished only with a penalty which likewise was prescribed by a previous law. The king should be judged then by the usual law, if another law did not specifically exclude him. The impunity of the king was not decreed by the Constitution, yet the document did not set forth the way in which he was to be judged. The constitution states the inviolability of the king and of the deputies but it only states how the deputies are to be judged. Why, then, might the members of the Constituent Assembly not have believed that the king, in violating the conditions of the Constitution, lost the right to counter judicial prosecutions with that inviolability which he held from the Constitution alone? That he might be judged for the crime of violation of the Constitution by virtue of the principles of common law, and that an explicit statement was not required? How, moreover, could the Constituent Assembly have set down in the Constitution, the method by which the king was to be judged? The legislature, in accord with the spirit of the Constitution, could not have the power to accuse him. To whom could that power belong? To the Nation alone, and thence to the representatives which it named to the Convention.
Cathryn Salisbury-Valerien Question 1 Morrison defends the right of kingship by first saying that there is no presedence for putting a king on trial. He continues by saying that kings were delegsates to the people and where to use their power to execute the will of the people for the purpose of general prosperity. Morrison also says that although many feel as if the king has done something wrong there is nothing in the constitution that declares that he did infact break the law, if he did break the law he can only be stripped of his position and is to become a commoner, if he did not than any law outlining what he has done cannot apply to him now since the deed was done before the law was inacted.
How does Morrison defend the right of kingship? Morrison believes that there is no law that can be applied to Louis Xvi and that being removed from King was punishment enough for his crimes. Morrison defends kingship by questioning if the committee can judge the king, if judging him is in the interests of the Republic, and questioning if the committee has the right to take measures for general safety and what those measures should be. Morrison points out that although the Constitution is “a work that contradicts the first principles of social order,” it also was the document in place when the crimes against the king took place. According to the constitution, “the person of the king is inviolable and sacred.” Additionally, Morrison argues out that in order for someone to be judged and sentenced there must be an existing statute for the crime that was committed and that no statute exists to judge the king.
What is the Girondin position on the trial of the king, as expressed by Condorcet? As expressed in the speech by Marquis de Condorcet, the Girondins argue that although the law doesn’t specifically say how to punish the king, however, this doesn’t mean he is innocent. The king should be punished according to the normal law for his crimes. He points out that the constitution says the king is inviolable but does not define inviolable specifically in terms of the king and it does not mean that the king’s cannot be punished. Additionally, the constitution does not define how the king is to be judged. According to Condorcet, the constitution states that the king’s punishment for certain crimes is his removal from the throne and after that he is treated as a citizen. By stating this, the Constitution meant to say that his punishment for certain crimes should therefore only be his removal from the throne.
Morrison Argues that no law existed with which to try the King at the time of his treasonous acts. He shows that the constitution that was active at the time only allowed for punishment for acts commited after he had given up his title. He does however make an arguement for why the people should be able to force the king to abdicate and that is that the constitution can only be respected if it represents the will of the people and that one obviously does not and this concerns a current event and not a past one governed by other laws.
1. How does Morrison defend the right of kingship?
Morrison says that no such law existed at the time of Louis' crime to judge the king. The penal code had no law which could be applied to Louis. He says the kingship is inviolable and sacred. He does admit that the King did betray the country and cause much of Europe to rise against France, but since a law did not exist at the time, nothing should be done.
1. Morrison finds himself in a paradox over the king. On one hand he wants the King to pay for his offenses, but he then asserts the King must be treated within the purview of the law. He believes the King should be tried, but he is concerned with the precedent this action will cause. Morrison maintains the original role of the King was to serve, or advance the will of the people; he then carries this to correspond with the role of the post-revolution. He strongly advocates the King is inviolable, but this rests in the people and in the laws he passes. Furthermore, he maintains the King makes laws for the betterment of his people and if the people are in disagreement with a law, then the King must feel compelled to change the law. In the case of the King and Constitution, Morrison maintains the rights of the King and kingship rest within the same parameters as that of his interpretation of the King as an agent of the people and enforcer of the laws. In the case of the Constitution and the King, Morrison correctly makes the claim no law was written into the Constitution regarding punishment of the king. In this, he references the English practice of statute law and makes the claim the Constitution set forth the abdication of the King for wrongdoing, but no law was put in or ascertained a punishment for the King in relation to the charges against him. Morrison also asserts the King's actions did not warrant this because it was not in the law and the law necessary to correct this could not be enacted against the King retroactively. And he states the only action the law authorizes for, is the abdication of the King. For Morrison, the King and the ideal of the monarchy are enveloped on the people, the rule of law in the Constitution, and he binds these two ideals within the revolutionary ideals , but concurrently maintaining the King cannot be tried within the purview of current constitutional parameters.
. How does Morrison defend the right of kingship?
ReplyDeleteMorrison says there is no statute nor precident in trying a king. A nation can declare a magistrate inviolate, where he cannot be indicted while in office and if he commit any crime , he can suffer no punishment but discharge. The penal code had no provision to deal withthe king, furthermore there is no unbiased jury in which to judge a king. Louis violate the consitiution and now wishes to take advantage of a consitiution he never adopted.
. What is the Girondin position on the trial of the king, as expressed by Condorcet? The king cannot be punishedand judged. Yet the king was guilty of amassing debt, arming enemies of France and ruining the credit of the nation. The Girondin did not believe the king to be "inviolable", that is he should be made to suffer for his actions against the nation. He, the king, was responsible for what his deputies did on his authority. As the the impartiallity of a jury, where the king could have no impartial jury, this would take the king out of reach of law. He was , in fact, a citizen of France and subject to all the laws and possible punishments of any citizen of France guilty of such atrocities.
How does Morrison defend the right of kingship?
ReplyDeleteMorrison goes about defending the kingship in an interesting way. He recognizes his views are not accepted by the majority. Morrison acknowledges that Louis the XVI did commit atrocities and his first impulse is to punish the King extensively. However, for the greater good of society he will not act on his impulses and asked the majority to do the same.
Morrison's defense is focused around the idea of whether the King can even be judged and whether it is in the best interest of the Republic that he be judged. According to the Constitution of 1791 Louis the XVI was legally immune to punishment. At the time these crimes were committed Louis XVI was protected by the Constitution of 1791.
Morrison recognized that the Constitution of 1791 was obsolete, disorderly, and unreasonable at this point in time. However, it was the piece of work which governed society during the time in these crimes took place, thus, acting as the sounding board on how to proceed with the King. Morrison also reminds the Convention that Louis XVI ministers were responsible for each one of the Kings departments. Morrison argues the King could not be punished for his exercise of executive power since his ministers were in fact the ones responsible (181). This would make it easy for the King to focus blame on his various agents instead of himself. Trying the King put the Revolution at risk. If the King was found innocent the Revolutionary movement could be found guilty; a risk which weighed heavily on many minds.
Posted by Kathryne Hardy
1. Morrison defends the right of kingship by quoting the Constitution by saying, "The person of the king is inviolable and sacred" (180). He believes that even though he knows that what the king did was wrong, that they have to ignore their angry thoughts of wanting to execute him and stick to what the Constitution states they should do. In other words, the Constitution, "the penal code has no provision which may be applied to Louis XVI,..."(180). They can't judge Louis XVI because there is no law for this.
ReplyDelete2. The Girondin's position on the trial of the king is as stated, "The other[article] declared that for all crimes committed after his legal abdication, he would be judged like other citizens..."(184). They also state that, "Finally, a man cannot demand favorable conditions for a contract which he did not carry out, or which he openly breached" (187). Here, the Girondins are referring to Louis XVI's openly dislike of the Constitution and how he didn't honor it. They find it hypocritical that the king should now acknowledge what the Constitution states when he didn't accept it before.
Kate Starnes
1.Morrison defends the right of kingship by examining whether or not the people even have the authority to make a decision of this magnitude. No law exists by which to judge the king and even though the law states that a citizen who betrays his country must be put to death there is no provision that targets the king exclusively. If one is to refer to the constitution the king is inviolable and sacred and cannot be classified as a citizen unless he abdicates his throne and Louis XVI did not meet the criteria for abdication. Morrison believes that the correct course of action against the king is to force him to give up his throne and call a National Convention, these actions have already been taken and there is no more that needs to be done.
ReplyDelete1. Morrison:
ReplyDeleteMorrison's argument centered around the "inviolability" of the King as set forth in the Constitution. He was adament that the previous Constitution, which was in effect at the time of the King's crimes, was the written law that had to be used to determine the King's punishment. However, because the document declared the King as inviolable and sacred, there was no punishment which could be legally rendered to the King.
In addition, the Constitution contained verbage that, after abdication, the king would be a "normal" citizen and could not be tried for any crimes committed before his abdication. Morrison explains that from the moment the Convention abolished the monarchy, Louis had stopped being king. But, he could not be tried for any crimes that occurred during his monarchy. In fact, Morrison says that Louis received the only punishment that was available, which was the dissolution of the monarchy.
2.The Girondins maintain that the king has been given every possible legal avenue that is opened and upheld by enlightened men. They use the fact that the law does not specify the king to their advantage stating that he should then be treated as if her were like any other French citizen. They use the fact that the Constitution was never enacted to counter the fact that the king was declared inviolable and sacred, and that for all crimes committed after his legal abdication, he would be judged like all other citizens. Most of all the Girondins maintain that the king cannot legitimately expect to be protected by a document that he never truly endorsed or believed in.
ReplyDelete2. Condorcet:
ReplyDeleteThe argument by the Marquis de Condorcet centered around his belief that, just because there was not a law that specifically excluded the actions of the King, he was not automatically exempt from legal consequence. Understanding that the previous law did not address the situation, Condorcet explained that the King should be judged by the usual law. In addition, Condorcet mentions that the Constitution did not define "inviolable" as it applies to the King. Condorcet's remarks make it clear that he, along with his Girondin contemporaries, firmly believed that Louis XVI must be judged for his crimes.
Johanna Gotay
ReplyDelete1. How does Morrison defend the right of kingship?
Charles-Francois-Gabriel Morrison defends the right of kingship by imposing questions to the committee: can the king by judged, is it in the interest of the Republic that he be judged, do we not have the right to take, with respect to him, measures for the general safety, finally what ought these measures to be? He states “kingship has sacred limits, that the people must resist their natural impulses and suspend all actions the better to weigh the consequences.” He believes that a king “cannot be indicted while in office and if he commit any crime, he can suffer no punishment but discharge.” Similarly he believes that their is no statute that exists to judge the king. That as citizens “they are religiously ruled by law; coolly, as impassive judges, we consult our penal code.” He believes the Constitution is a contradictory to the first principles of social order but nevertheless it governed the country. With that being said, the Constitution states that the king is inviolable and sacred, that he can be abdicated but not for crimes during his kingship. The Constitution therefore protects the king and Morrison asks the committee to obey the laws of the Constitution of the people. In summary he believes that their is no law which can be applied to Louis XVI and that he has already paid for his crimes. Monarchy is dead in France and that is enough of a sentence, their is no need to judge the king.
Johanna Gotay
ReplyDelete2. What is the Girondin position on the trial of the king, as expressed by Condorcet?
Marquis de Condorcet expresses that “it is time to teach kings that the silence of the law about their crimes is the ill consequence of their power, and not the will of reason or equity.” They believe the king should be judged by the “usual law, if another law did no specifically exclude him.” He reject the inviolability of the king and the deputies and believes they should also be tried by the usual law. Lastly, he believes the framers of the Constitution could not add a method to which the king be judged because it was not its duty. His theory is that the National Assembly had the right to judge the king and this is why the Constitution never mentioned it. Overall, his position on the trial of the king is that he be put on trial and be judged for his crimes.
How does Morrison defend the right of kingship?
ReplyDeleteHe questions whether the people have the power to judge the king. He says the people have sovereign will but not the power to be justice dictates. He then says there are no statues which apply to him and there are none on the books. The law (penal code) says that anyone who betrays their country should be put to death. Louis betrayed his country but the Constitution grants him immunity. The person of the king is inviolable and sacred. To the counter argument the king is inviolable only by virtue of the Constitution; the Constitution is no more and his inviolability has ceased with it. What holds true for laws in general is true for the Constitution. With the exception of those portions which have been negated by laws or acts posterior to it, such as the elimination of the monarchy and the establishment of the Republic, the Constitution stands. Finally, the king was head of his council but everything was done in his name by his ministers. Our powers ceased when the king was king no longer. The foundation of the Republic and the suppression of monarchy are in no way a statutory judgment against Louis XVI, and are in no way a punishment directed against him as a man. Finally there is no further preexisting law which might be applied to Louis XVI, there may be no further sentence passed against him.
What is the Girondin position on the trial of the king, as expressed by Condorcet?
An action can be grounds for legitimate punishment only if a previous law defined that action expressly as a crime; and it can be punished only with a penalty which likewise was prescribed by a previous law. The king should be judged then by the usual law, if another law did not specifically exclude him. The impunity of the king was not decreed by the Constitution, yet the document did not set forth the way in which he was to be judged. The constitution states the inviolability of the king and of the deputies but it only states how the deputies are to be judged. Why, then, might the members of the Constituent Assembly not have believed that the king, in violating the conditions of the Constitution, lost the right to counter judicial prosecutions with that inviolability which he held from the Constitution alone? That he might be judged for the crime of violation of the Constitution by virtue of the principles of common law, and that an explicit statement was not required? How, moreover, could the Constituent Assembly have set down in the Constitution, the method by which the king was to be judged? The legislature, in accord with the spirit of the Constitution, could not have the power to accuse him. To whom could that power belong? To the Nation alone, and thence to the representatives which it named to the Convention.
Jeff Smith
Cathryn Salisbury-Valerien
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1
Morrison defends the right of kingship by first saying that there is no presedence for putting a king on trial. He continues by saying that kings were delegsates to the people and where to use their power to execute the will of the people for the purpose of general prosperity. Morrison also says that although many feel as if the king has done something wrong there is nothing in the constitution that declares that he did infact break the law, if he did break the law he can only be stripped of his position and is to become a commoner, if he did not than any law outlining what he has done cannot apply to him now since the deed was done before the law was inacted.
How does Morrison defend the right of kingship?
ReplyDeleteMorrison believes that there is no law that can be applied to Louis Xvi and that being removed from King was punishment enough for his crimes. Morrison defends kingship by questioning if the committee can judge the king, if judging him is in the interests of the Republic, and questioning if the committee has the right to take measures for general safety and what those measures should be. Morrison points out that although the Constitution is “a work that contradicts the first principles of social order,” it also was the document in place when the crimes against the king took place. According to the constitution, “the person of the king is inviolable and sacred.” Additionally, Morrison argues out that in order for someone to be judged and sentenced there must be an existing statute for the crime that was committed and that no statute exists to judge the king.
What is the Girondin position on the trial of the king, as expressed by Condorcet?
ReplyDeleteAs expressed in the speech by Marquis de Condorcet, the Girondins argue that although the law doesn’t specifically say how to punish the king, however, this doesn’t mean he is innocent. The king should be punished according to the normal law for his crimes. He points out that the constitution says the king is inviolable but does not define inviolable specifically in terms of the king and it does not mean that the king’s cannot be punished. Additionally, the constitution does not define how the king is to be judged. According to Condorcet, the constitution states that the king’s punishment for certain crimes is his removal from the throne and after that he is treated as a citizen. By stating this, the Constitution meant to say that his punishment for certain crimes should therefore only be his removal from the throne.
How does Morrison defend the right of kingship?
ReplyDeleteMorrison Argues that no law existed with which to try the King at the time of his treasonous acts. He shows that the constitution that was active at the time only allowed for punishment for acts commited after he had given up his title. He does however make an arguement for why the people should be able to force the king to abdicate and that is that the constitution can only be respected if it represents the will of the people and that one obviously does not and this concerns a current event and not a past one governed by other laws.
James Murray
1. How does Morrison defend the right of kingship?
ReplyDeleteMorrison says that no such law existed at the time of Louis' crime to judge the king. The penal code had no law which could be applied to Louis. He says the kingship is inviolable and sacred. He does admit that the King did betray the country and cause much of Europe to rise against France, but since a law did not exist at the time, nothing should be done.
Lindsay Berreth
1. Morrison finds himself in a paradox over the king. On one hand he wants the King to pay for his offenses, but he then asserts the King must be treated within the purview of the law. He believes the King should be tried, but he is concerned with the precedent this action will cause. Morrison maintains the original role of the King was to serve, or advance the will of the people; he then carries this to correspond with the role of the post-revolution. He strongly advocates the King is inviolable, but this rests in the people and in the laws he passes. Furthermore, he maintains the King makes laws for the betterment of his people and if the people are in disagreement with a law, then the King must feel compelled to change the law. In the case of the King and Constitution, Morrison maintains the rights of the King and kingship rest within the same parameters as that of his interpretation of the King as an agent of the people and enforcer of the laws. In the case of the Constitution and the King, Morrison correctly makes the claim no law was written into the Constitution regarding punishment of the king. In this, he references the English practice of statute law and makes the claim the Constitution set forth the abdication of the King for wrongdoing, but no law was put in or ascertained a punishment for the King in relation to the charges against him. Morrison also asserts the King's actions did not warrant this because it was not in the law and the law necessary to correct this could not be enacted against the King retroactively. And he states the only action the law authorizes for, is the abdication of the King. For Morrison, the King and the ideal of the monarchy are enveloped on the people, the rule of law in the Constitution, and he binds these two ideals within the revolutionary ideals , but concurrently maintaining the King cannot be tried within the purview of current constitutional parameters.
ReplyDelete~~~Albert Bailey