Article V and the Question of Sovereignty Part I

Article V Blog ^ | February 27th 2017 | Rodney Dodsworth

[Jacquerie]

As President Trump works to undo the outrages of the Pen and Phone President, he will issue executive orders, consult congress, and instruct his cabinet secretaries to reverse the mess their social justice predecessors left behind. The President has enormous power, and while patriots know his power isn’t absolute, too many Americans believe it nearly is, or should be.

A person or body is said to have legal sovereignty when he or it has unlimited, absolute law-making power, and when there is no person or body legally superior to him or it.

Over a series of posts, I will take a closer look at sovereignty as viewed through the lens of 18th century England and America. Then, as in recent decades, the popular notion of sovereignty evolved, and sometimes rapidly, with the times. We’ll find that sovereignty is conceptually easier to define than to determine in whom or what body it resides. History shows sovereignty isn’t static. It moves. It may be on the move today.

Lawmaking is the essence of sovereignty. In England, William the Conqueror and his successors exercised this absolute authority. While Magna Carta theoretically limited King John and subsequent kings, king-as-lawgiver sanctioned by God remained the staple of England and the continental monarchies.

Not until the mid-16th century did Parliament begin its transition from a judicial to a combined judicial/legislative body. In fits and starts, including a couple of revolutions over the next 130+ years, indivisible sovereignty finally came to rest in a combined King in Parliament.