Are there limits to President Trump’s personal right to make decisions?
There are constitutional law cases on this point, the first of which might be Marbury v. Madison in 1803, a Supreme Court opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall (my hero) which is very, very long.
But in 1649, the Commons of England abolished the office of king. Their legislation is here, setting forth their reasoning that prerogative is a danger.
Later, John Locke, in his “Second Treatise of Government,” took a more balanced view of prerogative:
A good monarch – one mindful of the trust put into his hands and careful about the good of his people – can’t have too much prerogative, i.e. power to do good. Whereas a weak and poorly performing monarch – one who would claim that the power his predecessors exercised without the direction of the law is a prerogative belonging to him by the right of his position, a right that he may exercise as he wishes, to make or promote interests distinct from those of the public – causes the people to claim their right and to limit the power that they had been content to tacitly allow while it was exercised for their good.
On the matter of prerogative, there is an old question: Who is to judge whether this power is being used rightly?
If you were to judge whether Donald Trump’s use of prerogative is rightly done or not, what would you say?
Please join us for an in-person round table over lunch on prerogative at noon on Tuesday, April 29, at the Landmark Center, room 430, in St. Paul.
Registration will begin at 11:30 am.
Cost to attend is $20, which you can pay at the door.
To register, please email jed@cauxroundtable.net.
The event will last between an hour and hour and a half.