Is the king above the law?

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (undated): William Blackstone believed that the king is not above the law, as he stated that the doctrine of non obstante, which sets the prerogative above the laws, was 'effectually demolished by the bill of rights at the revolution.' "the doctrine of non obstante's, which sets the prerogative above the laws, was effectually demolished by the bill of rights at the revolution" [1]
• BELIEF (undated): William Blackstone believed that the king is not above the law and must govern according to it. He cited historical legal principles, Bracton, Fortescue, and a statute to support this view. (key quote above) [2]
• BELIEF (undated): William Blackstone believed that the king is not above the law, as he described how the powers of the crown have been curtailed and restrained by laws enacted over the past century, including the Petition of Right and the Bill of Rights, which assert the liberties of the people and limit the king's authority. "we may perhaps be led to think that the balance is inclined pretty strongly to the popular scale, and that the executive magistrate has neither independence nor power enough left to form that check upon the lords and commons which the founders of our constitution intended." [3]
• BELIEF (undated): William Blackstone believed that the king is not subject to the same legal limitations as subjects, including the inability to be a minor or to have his rights barred by delay. He argued that the law assumes the king is always acting for the public good and is therefore above certain legal constraints. "In the king can be no negligence, or laches, and therefore no delay will bar his right... Neither can the king in judgment of law, as king, ever be a minor or under age." [4]
• BELIEF (undated): William Blackstone believed that the king is not above the law, as he argued that the limits of the king's prerogative can be discussed and examined by subjects, and that in former times, such topics were considered too sacred to be questioned. He cited historical figures like Queen Elizabeth and King James I, who held opposing views, to contrast with the current state of freedom. "There cannot be a stronger proof of that genuine freedom, which is the boast of this age and country, than the power of discussing and examining, with decency and respect, the limits of the king's prerogative;" [5]
• BELIEF (undated): William Blackstone believed that the king is not above the law, as he discusses the king's title and authority under the laws of God and the statutes of the realm. He emphasizes that the crown's rights are subject to parliamentary direction and legal limitations. "the queen's highness is, and in very deed and of most mere right ought to be, by the laws of God, and the laws and statutes of this realm, our most lawful and rightful sovereign liege lady and queen" [6]
• BELIEF (undated): William Blackstone believed that the king was not above the law. He argued that the king's loss of reputation and his reduction of prerogative below what was consistent with monarchical government led to suspicion and unrest, implying that the king should be subject to legal and constitutional constraints. "Though he formerly had strained his prerogative, not only beyond what the genius of the present times would bear, but also beyond the examples of former ages, he had now consented to reduce it to a lower ebb than was consistent with monarchical government." [7]
• BELIEF (undated): William Blackstone believed that the king can do no wrong as a necessary and fundamental principle of the English constitution, but clarified that this does not mean the king is above the law. He explained that the law provides a respectful mode for the king to be informed of and to redress injuries to subjects, as it presumes the king desires to know of and redress any injury. (key quote above) [8]

What cuts against it

• ACTION (undated): William Blackstone described the historical practice of the king naming sheriffs without the election of the judges, which some writers claimed was an exercise of prerogative above the law. "It is true, the reporter adds, that it was held that the queen by her prerogative might make a sheriff without the election of the judges, non obstante aliquo statuto in contrarium." [1]

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. William Blackstone stated that the king must govern according to law, citing Bracton, Fortescue, and statute 12 & 13 W. III. c. 2. (key quote above) [2]

2. He emphasized that the king is not above the law, as it is a maxim of English law that "rex debet esse sub lege, quia lex facit regem." [9]

3. The king's prerogative is limited by the laws of England, and the balance of power has shifted toward the people, as seen in the Petition of Right and the Bill of Rights. "we may perhaps be led to think that the balance is inclined pretty strongly to the popular scale..." [3]

4. The king is presumed to act for the public good, and any injury to subjects is redressed by informing the king of the true state of the matter. "the law hath furnished the subject with a decent and respectful mode of removing that invasion..." [8]

5. While the king is not subject to legal limitations like subjects (e.g., being a minor or having rights barred by delay), this is a constitutional fiction, not a claim that the king is above the law. "In the king can be no negligence, or laches..." [4] (inference)

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: DIRECT

The record directly addresses whether the king is above the law. Blackstone consistently argued that the king is not above the law, but is bound by it and must govern according to it. He cited historical legal principles, statutes, and the Bill of Rights to support this view.

Extrapolation: William Blackstone would conclude that the king is not above the law, but is subject to it in both principle and practice. The king's prerogative is limited by constitutional and legal constraints, and any injury to subjects is redressed through legal mechanisms that presume the king's good faith.

Competing readings: One reading is that the king is not subject to the same legal limitations as subjects, such as being a minor or having rights barred by delay. This is a constitutional fiction, not a claim that the king is above the law. Another reading is that the king's prerogative, in certain historical contexts, could be exercised above the law, but Blackstone argued this was inconsistent with the English constitution and was effectively curtailed by the Bill of Rights. The record itself states the latter as a STATED REASON.

Confidence: High. The record directly and repeatedly states that the king is not above the law, citing legal principles, statutes, and historical examples. The competing readings are acknowledged but do not contradict the central conclusion.