3 ms·
> That doesn’t alter the point that he’s still responsible for the things happening in his name. There's case law on this matter actually, coming from the tria
by sgjohnson 3y ago
> That doesn’t alter the point that he’s still responsible for the things happening in his name.
There's case law on this matter actually, coming from the trial of King Charles I.
> The court challenged the doctrine of sovereign immunity and proposed that "the King of England was not a person, but an office whose every occupant was entrusted with a limited power to govern 'by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise'."
So no, granting the Royal Assent doesn't happen in the name of King Charles III.
- ncallaway 3y agoSure, and when Biden vetoes something it’s happening by the Office of the President. It’s still happening by the hand and pen of President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. History can figure out who held the office when. Maybe we can’t sue either of them personally for those actions (which is what sovereign immunity relates to), but history can sure as shit remember which King took which actions. You think we don’t remember which George lost the American colonies, because it was the Office that lost the colonies?