From the courts, pretty much.
Why, just look at King James' son, when he took over. HE certainly didn't have any problems in getting whatever he wanted.
It's safe to say, by this point in his life, he wasn't King anymore. Furthermore, his opponent wasn't the Courts, it was Oliver Cromwell.
Once he assumed power, the courts belonged to him.
"Execute the King? Sure, whatever you say Lord Protector Cromwell. Would you like fries with that?"
.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
It's always some excuse with you, isn't it? There was nothing wrong with the ruling in Calvin's Case. It was a reasonable ruling, and it allowed a small boy to inherit the estate that his relative had left him. It also allowed the two countries, Scotland and England, that now shared a King, to begin to move their peoples closer together in a relationship that would end with them becoming a single country.
So you are now arguing that laws should be "outcome based"? Are you sure you're not a Liberal? My understanding of Law is that it should not be modified/manipulated to suit whatever beneficial result can be wrung out of it today. Usually this only causes bigger problems tomorrow.
The consequences of a ruling either good or bad for some particular plaintiff or defendant, should not enter in to the consideration of how the law should be interpreted. It is presumed that the creators of the Law, (in most cases Legislators) had already weighed the consequences, and decided that the law they created would do more good than ill. It is THEIR right to create the law, and it is the Judges responsibility to see that it is carried out consistent with their intentions.
And anyone in history, no matter how UNauthoritative (like David Ramsay and Samuel Roberts), who said something that even SOUNDS like it might support your idiotic BS... why, THEY'RE freakin' geniuses.
I'm beginning to suspect you are a clever teenager. Too often do you veer into these logic-less pronouncements, that while emotionally satisfying to you, are indicative of a lack of understanding of the overall situation. "Geniuses" either pro or con, is irrelevant to the point. What they said and wrote is what it is, and they are what they are. By today's standards, ALL OF THEM were Freakin' Geniuses, including the people you are fond of citing.
Sorry, but you've been called on your BS. Your response has been to push it harder and harder. And every time you push it, anyone watching gets to see once again just what a load of BS you're peddling.
And more whistling past the graveyard from you.