Recently, some 5 million Americans participated in a “No Kings” day protest, objecting to Donald Trump’s perceived arbitrary and capricious decision-making, his imperious fixation on self. The slogan, “No Kings,” was shorthand for shouting out, “No Trump.” It was an iteration in new words of the persistent assertion that he himself – not his ideas only – is a danger to democracy and a dictator in the making.
Opposition to abuse of kingly authority has a long history for Anglo-Americans. In 1215, the barons of England imposed the Magna Carta on King John to restrain his personal authority. In 1260 or so, Henry de Bracton, the first legal scholar commenting on English laws, set down the basis for a politics of “No Kings.” In his treatise, he wrote in Latin: Ipse autem rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub deo et sub lege, quia les facit regem – “The king must not be under man, but under God and the law, for the law makes the king”; non est enim rex ubi doninatur voluntas et non lex – “There is no king where will rules and not law”; and Et ideo si rex fuerit sine fraeno, id est sine lege, debebt et fraenum apponere – “Also his curia, namely, the earls and barons, because if he is without a bridle, that is without law, they ought to put the bridle on him.”
Here, the rule is set down clearly: the law makes the king. A king acting without the law – an outlaw – is no man to be obeyed.
Later, in 1399, King Richard II was deposed by the “earls and barons” and clergy of his realm. One of the reasons for his being removed from his throne was written down as:
The King being not willing to maintain and protect the just laws and customs of the Realm, but endeavoring to gratify his pleasure in every thing, according to the arbitrariness of his Will, when the laws of the Kingdom were declared and expounded to him by his justices and others of his Counsel; and when they would desire him to administer justice to his subjects according to those laws, the King with a fierce and stern countenance, would tell them sometimes, that the laws were in his mouth, and at other times, that they were in his breast, and that he alone could make and alter the laws of his Kingdom; and being seduced by that opinion, would not suffer justice to be done to his subjects, but by his threats and menaces forced multitudes of his subjects to desist from the prosecution of their rights at the common law.
In March 1649, after they had won a civil war against King Charles I and executed him for willfully “traitorously and maliciously levying war against the present parliament and the people therein represented,” the Parliament abolished the office of king in England and all its dominions:
And whereas it is and hath been found by experience, that the Office of a King in this Nation and Ireland, and to have the power thereof in any single person, is unnecessary, burthensom and dangerous to the liberty, safety and publique interest of the people, and that for the most part, use hath been made of the Regal power and prerogative, to oppress, and impoverish and enslave the Subject; and that usually and naturally any one person in such power, makes it his interest to incroach upon the just freedom and liberty of the people, and to promote the setting up of their own will and power above the Laws, that so they might enslave these Kingdoms to their own Lust; Be it therefore Enacted and Ordained by this present Parliament, and by Authority of the same, That the Office of a King in this Nation, shall not henceforth reside in, or be exercised by any one single person; and that no one person whatsoever, shall or may have, or hold the Office, Stile, Dignity, Power or Authority of King of the said Kingdoms and Dominions, or any of them, or of the Prince of Wales, Any Law, Statute, Usage or Custom to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.
This was a dramatic affirmation of the constitutional and political principle “No Kings.”
Yet, our world continues to witness and tolerate national leaders (rulers?) who act willfully on their own prerogative, without the law or having the laws come from within their conscience or out of their mouth.
The Caux Round Table, when drafting its Principles for Government, sided with the principle that “law makes the king.” We proposed that the powers of an office – any office – are no more than responsibilities to act as a humble trustee of the common good, seeking above all else to benefit others.
Fundamental principle: Public power is held in trust for the community.
Power brings responsibility. Power is a necessary moral circumstance in that it binds the actions of one to the welfare of others.
Therefore, the power given by public office is held in trust for the benefit of the community and its citizens. Officials are custodians only of the powers they hold. They have no personal entitlement to office or the prerogatives thereof.
Holders of public office are accountable for their conduct while in office. They are subject to removal for malfeasance, misfeasance or abuse of office. The burden of proof that no malfeasance, misfeasance or abuse of office has occurred lies with the officeholder.
The state is the servant and agent of higher ends. It is subordinate to society. Public power is to be exercised within a framework of moral responsibility for the welfare of others. Governments that abuse their trust shall lose their authority and may be removed from office.