“That the king can do no wrong is a necessary and fundamental principle of the English constitution.”

... and since America has applied it to our current King George, we have found the very foundations of our country under attack from that very same King George and his pack of henchmen. We as a country are under attack only from one form of terrorism, that of our King.

Very well said, by a man who understood sovereignty and the difference between monarchy and individuality. In a monarchy, the king is the total sovereign, and all pay homage to him. In our Constitutional Republic (unlike any other Republic), "We The People" are each of us a monarch of our own stewardship, and are individually sovereign. In turn, we delegate (not abdicate) our sovereign right of representation to another in order to act in our stead. This representative cannot, under any circumstances, assume a non-delegated right that has not been justly given; to do such would be usurpation and would lead to the entire destruction of our form of government. Accordingly, when the King is the absolute sovereign, he cannot, under any circumstances, make a mistake and be something less than what he is-- this would lead to the entire destruction of their government. The King is either the absolute sovereign, or he is not; if he makes any mistakes, he obviously isn't the absolute sovereign.

Blackstone's philosophies on law, liberty, and sovereignty were among the most influential principles on forging the U.S.'s Constitution. The American Founders simply applied such principles to the individual (being the ultimate evolutionary application of such principles) Both Anonymous and Logan are correct here. When the principle(s) is applied as the individual is unalienable sovereign (procedurally able to delegate rights - not abdicate them; as the founders intended) the quote gets 5 stars. When King George and his henchmen (ultimate terrorists) act with police/military might to enforce governments absolute abdication of individual right over life, liberty, and property the quote gets a thumbs down.

Has America gone this far yet? Not quite, but then again, according to GWB, we are either with him or with the terrorists... hmm.

-Perhaps so, but I'm still glad Al Gore wasn't at the helm on 9/11. We'd still be getting lectures on all the valid reasons why the Euro-trash hate us.

Are you all having a panic attack, combined with a psychotic episode, at the same time? I cannot believe you really believe the comparisons you make.

It was because of this concept of absolute authority of the monarch in 18th century England that we are independent today. Our concept is almost completely reversed now, wherein the president can do nothing right. At least that's true in the 21st century. And Bob, of Eugene. OR, if Al Gore had been president in 2001, we would definitely not be bogged down in an irrelevant hell-hole today, waiting for a more able president to clean up the mess. You may be glad we're there but I don't think most Americans are. One of many of the wrong-headed policies of our country now.

This is profoundly unrealistic. I hope it's just a sarcastic commentary.

Further, this is the foundational concept that the government can not be sued or criminally pursued for acting within its job description (that of being representatives to the individual kings). In the U.S., the Constitution defines a very limited scope in which the kings' representatives may act. While within that scope, the kings' representatives can do no wrong. Only when individuals act under color of office (claiming immunity as a representative), contrary to, or outside that narrowly defined scope of Constitutional duties, can the individual, or collective, be prosecuted or sued. Compelled compliance, license, victimless crimes, governmental larceny, eminent domain without personal allodium, socialistic theocracy are but a few criminal descriptions that are outside the American Constitution's scope of duties and protection. The foreign despots that now infest this land, under power of the gun, threat and duress over a dummied down populous suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, act contrary to, outside of, and with no Constitutional limits. The foreign despots, under color of office act as divinely anointed kings, being able to do no wrong.

"That the King can do no wrong" is a concept which was soundly rejected by the American people and the founding fathers. It is the antithesis of freedom.

Guess you Bush bashers are all happy now with our new "king". Apparently a lot of people think BHO can do no wrong. I'm here to say that I'm still waiting for him to do something right, other than run a campaign! Our founding documents give us the right to reclaim or remove our government and replace it. Are we there yet? If not, when? And as for you people who wanted Gore in charge, please tell me you're kidding.

He is correct, sadly to say! Like at work their were two rules: 1) the boss is always right 2) when the boss is wrong see rule Number 1. The King is right until he loses his head. It is good to be the king until then.

King Obama can do no wrong, if you believe the propaganda being put out by the liberal media.

This is exactly what the American Constitution was to prevent -- no Executive aggrandizement.

I think he was talking about a king with no constitutional restrictions, such as King George, as opposed to the president who, of all branches, is the most restricted, not tyrannical. So no the terroirsm is not George W Bush or Obama it is those not civically virtous and ignorant of the governmnet. While we may not agree with their ideals our presidents pose no terrorist threat and everytime we accuse them of such we undermine the very bases of the constitution and the rule of law.

Erik, Bakersfield WHAT ? ? ? Are you not aware of King George's authorized torture or, Mr. Obamunist Goodwrench the Assassin's active hit list? Presidents pose no terrorist threat ? WHAT ? ? ? (by way of a single example in an innumerable list, Presidential directed drones killing innocent children) What rock have you been hiding under for the last 100 years ? WHAT Constitutional rule of law ? That hasn't happened anywhere in almost 100 years. Do you think legislators are gods with ability to create law ex nihilo (out of nothing) ? I say again WHAT ? ? ?

First of all, has anyone even noticed that the UK (Great Britain) has NO constitution?

Blackstone must have been referring to the individual 'constitution' of its inhabitants.

It must be that way in a monarchy. The throne is upheld by mercy and truth, otherwise it becomes tyrannical. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. Psalm 2:10 thru 12 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. Prov 1:7 Kings do commit treason. Thank God for our Republic. BHO is as a king who causes shame and a shadow of darkness upon our land.

In the de jure States united, each sovereign has certain inalienable rights at natural law. That natural law eternally exists, it is from within and without the sovereign individual. In such de jure States united, servants are hired to represent those rights (not representing the individual beings themselves - each individual's thoughts, actions, feelings, religions, etc. differ. At natural law, sovereign rights exist eternally in the being and do not vary). English sovereignty is here a term or concept at legal positivism where there is no law except as declared or accepted by the single sovereign. All law exists in the single sovereign and is externally authorized therefrom (the English sovereign is a god - an extension of god - god's mouth piece, the sole creator of what is good for the creator, etc.) The de jure States united application of law was to be a protection of inalienable sovereign rights while, the English application of law was / is to be a limitation and control over the single sovereign's lesser servants. Legalisms such as codes, ordinances, regulations, rules and statutes are considered tools to order the law while at natural law while, such legalisms at legal positivism are considered 'law' with tyrannical enforcement supplying the supposed order. At the States united recognition of natural law, all acts against nature (person or property) were defined as criminal. The jurisprudence thereof was limited to life, liberty and property. The English legal positivism expresses the single sovereign's whim as 'law'.

should have included: At natural law (initially recognized the de jure jurisprudence of the original States united), corporeal man can NOT make or enforce law (law exists eternally). Corporeal man can only order his affairs at law and justice. At legal positivism, man, as a god, can create law and enforce his edicts.

There is not an American president over the last 25 years that hasn't deserved impeachment. The US has become a de facto monarchy.

A king doesn't have to account for the money flow. When King George W. left office he left Obama a 7 trillion dollar debt, unaccounted for.
Since then, the Republican congress has added what ? Another 20 trillion, that "King O" is blamed for.

Of what use is someone who's position is built on the rejection of a human stance and that of life as a whole? The English constitution has a built in mental impairment infection and can stand some intense replacement.A human accepts the fact that they can and will undoubtedly be in error, and frequently at that. Life is founded on imperfection. We seek excellence.