It is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words. The most general words that can be devised (for example, any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate) affect not him in the least, if they may tend to restrain or diminish any of his rights and interests. He may even take the benefit of any particular act, though not named. The rule thus settled respecting the British Crown is equally applicable to this government, and it has been applied frequently in the different states, and practically in the Federal courts. It may be considered as settled that so much of the royal prerogatives as belonged to the King in his capacity of parens patrioe, or universal trustee, enters as much into our political state as it does into the principles of the British Constitution. U.S. v. Chamberlin, 219 U.S. 250 (1911), Dollar Sav. Bank v. United States, supra.
Posted on: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:02:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015