Not often do notable events impacting the royal family of the United Kingdom and the president of the United States happen nearly simultaneously. But both the police questioning of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and the U.S. Supreme Court’s invalidating national and international policies of President Trump vindicate the moral integrity of the Caux Round Table’s Principles for Moral Government.
My reassurance on this validation of our principles is as follows:
First, the Caux Round Table ethical principle that public office is a public trust was just vindicated in the United Kingdom, when the police took in for questioning Andrew Windsor-Mountbatten, former Prince of the Realm. He was questioned on his conduct as a government official for possible misconduct in public office.
The Caux Round Table Principles for Moral Government demand that a public office is a public trust. Therefore, every public official is a trustee held to fiduciary duties of service and selflessness:
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.
And:
Public servants shall refrain from abuse of office, corruption and shall demonstrate high levels of personal integrity.
Public office is not to be used for personal advantage, financial gain or as a prerogative manipulated by arbitrary personal desire. Corruption – financial, political and moral – is inconsistent with stewardship of public interests. Only the rule of law is consistent with a principled approach to use of public power.
This standard of conduct for public officials we get from Cicero in his De Officiis (On Duties). He wrote:
For the administration of the government, like the office of a trustee, must be conducted for the benefit of those entrusted to one’s care, not of those to whom it is entrusted. Now, those who care for the interests of a part of the citizens and neglect another part, introduce into the civil service a dangerous element – dissension and party strife. (Book I, XXV, 85)
Secondly, last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rule of law governing the Presidency, not the arbitrary and capricious whim of a president.
According to the Caux Round Table Principles of Moral Government:
Only the rule of law is consistent with a principled approach to use of public power.
Chief Justice John Roberts for the Court wrote that President was not authorized by the Congress to declare national emergencies and pursuant to such declarations impose and then willfully modify tariffs on goods purchased by Americans. The court declared the law to be that the Constitution gave the power to impose taxes only to the Congress and that tariffs were taxation of the American people.
Robert’s opinion said:
“Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA – “regulate” and “importation” – the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.”
Thus, the Court’s opinion for a majority of justices turned on “wording,” on the rightful understanding of “words,” not just any “my truth” interpretation of words to suit an official’s pleasure, ambition, corrupt purpose or stupidity.
Roberts, thereby, refuted the Nietzschean arrogance of Humpty Dumpty when instructing Alice on the meaning of words:
“And only one for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!”
“I don’t know what you mean by “glory,” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t – till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”
“But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”
To use Humpty Dumpty’s logic, we can reframe what the Supreme Court did, using its authority given by Article III of the Constitution, when it decided what was to be the meaning of certain words in a statute passed by Congress, was to assume the right to be “master.”
As far as his tariffs were concerned, President Trump was not “master” of defining legislative language.
The Supreme Court held that, in a case about taxation of the people, President Trump was ruled by law, not his individual arbitrary and capricious will. He has no authority to impose taxes:
“,,, the Framers gave Congress “alone . . . access to the pockets of the people.” The Federalist No. 48, at 310 (J. Madison); see also Declaration of Independence ¶19. They required “All Bills for raising Revenue [to] originate in the House of Representatives.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §7, cl. 1. And in doing so, they ensured that only the House could “propose the supplies requisite for the support of government,” thereby reducing “all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches.” The Federalist No. 58, at 359 (J. Madison). They did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch. See Nicol, 173 U. S., at 515 (“[T]he whole power of taxation rests with Congress”).
No quibbling possible here; no lawyering that black can mean white or that white can mean black.
The Court ruled that the President’s authority under Article II of the Constitution to manage the nation’s foreign affairs did not include any authority at all to override a separate constitutional provision on taxation.
Placing executive officials under the rule of law has long been the rule of governance in England. Writing of English constitutional law around 1250, Henry De Bracton stated that, “The king must not be under man, but under God and under the law because law makes the king. … for there is no king where will rules rather than law.” … The king has a superior, namely God. Also, the law by which he is made king. Also, his council, namely the earls and barons because if he is without bridle, that is without law, they ought to put a bridle on him.”
In 1399, Richard II, King of England, was deposed as king. Article 33 of the articles presented to justify his being deposed said this about his not following the rule of law, of not having the law as a bridle:
The king did not wish to preserve or protect the just laws and customs of this kingdom, but to do what struck his fancy according to his arbitrary will. When frequently the justices and others of the council explained and declared the laws of the realm to him and when according to those laws he was to grant justice to those seeking it, he said expressly with a hard and a bold countenance that the laws were in his mouth and sometimes he said that they were in his heart and that he alone could change and establish the laws of the realm. Following that opinion, he did not grant justice to many of his liegemen, but through threats and terrors he compelled many to cease asking for common justice.
In an interview with the New York Times last month, President Trump said that the only constraint to his power as president is “my own morality, my own mind.”
“It’s the only thing that can stop me,” Trump said, adding: “I’m not looking to hurt people.” He went on to concede “I do” in regards to whether his administration needed to adhere to international law, but said: “It depends on what your definition of international law is.”
Trump, who spoke to the newspaper as his administration looks into “a range of options” in attempts to gain control of Greenland, also emphasized the importance of ownership.
“Ownership is very important,” Trump said, adding: “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do with, you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”
Note that to be an owner makes you a “master.”
Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy of the will to power, which legitimated ungoverned mastery dripping with arrogance and intolerance, would not tolerate any subordination of the individual to the rule of law.
Trump’s response to the Supreme Court’s decision to deny him the power to impose taxes on the American people was Humpty Dumpty-ish, putting labels on the justices who refused to accept his way of thinking:
“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.” The justices in the majority are a “disgrace to our nation” and “very unpatriotic and disloyal to the Constitution.” “They’re just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats.” “It’s an embarrassment to their families, to one another.”