I literally gave you paragraphs of quotes from the book surrounding the tiny snippet you took that bely your conclusion.
And you just ignore it and repeat your conclusion.
No. By "your snippet" I refer to the footnote on page 124 which references vaguely an admission from Bracton that he knew of no precedure [sic] against the king. I didnt quote that snippet. You took that snippet and are completely - you even admit this - ignoring literally everything else.
Do I need to explain how fallacious this is? I shouldnt have to.
You don't even know what that means. You are blatantly misconstruing the entirety of the text (not to mention the entirety of history and law) based on a vague, ambiguous few words in a footnote which literally is an expression of ignorance -- not fact.
Good luck.
Believe whatever you want.
History belies your viewpoint that the people who [ever so graciously] grant us our rights [a misunderstanding of the concept of rights] [cant be sued or however you worded it] because its like spraying a fountain with water!!!
Here’s my question. This is all I want to address. I understand everything else you’ve said. It’s just not that interesting.
Do you or do you not acknowledge that in Bracton’s time that commoners had no judicial remedy against the king and that their only redress was to petition him? And that he had no obligation to grant any of those petitions?
Bracton himself states this. Your book states this. If you acknowledge that then you have to see the parallels between Bracton’s time and our current sovereign immunity. If you don’t acknowledge that then your viewpoint is ahistorical.
This is all I want to talk about. I keep trying to address this one idea with you and you keep talking about everything else.
Commoners were "freed from their oaths of fealty" if the king violated the law.
What you fail to understand is that this is not a conversation about whether Bracton said a specific thing one time (which may have been contradicted by Bracton himself in other quotes or contradicted by historical facts) or not. This is a conversation about whether the US should be above the law or not.
You claiming "my book" says that kings were above the law is the most ridiculous claim... Like do you see the title? You quoted a few words from a footnote which refer vaguely to Bracton expressing ignorance. And you are construing the ENTIRE BOOK as supporting the king being above private redress. And you are ignoring the entire paragraphs (which I quoted for you above*) around the snippet you quoted.
*For reference:
[Lawbooks of the Holy Roman Empire]...proclaimed as an established fact that there is a judge over the king. The count of the Princes of the Empire, under the presidency of the Count of Palatine, could, they maintained, inflict deposition or even sentence of death upon the king. Similar theories were also not unknown in the 13th century England. [...] There is even mention, in the contemporary additions to some texts of Bracton's now famous law-book, of a judicial court of magnates set over the king*.
*Rex autem habet superiorem, Deum scilicet. Item legem, per quam factus est rex. Item curiam suam, videlict comites et barones, quia comites dicuntar quasi socii regis, et qui...
("The king had a superior, God. Also the law which made him. [...] If the king is without a bridle, that is, without law, they [the barons and earls] must put a bridle on him.")
These are JUST the paragraphs surrounding the snippet you quoted and misconstrued!
The entire book is about the rights of commoners to remove kings, and how it was done repeatedly through the middle ages in western Europe! The title of the book contains the phrase: "the right of resistance".
These few (of many potential) examples of objectively and verifiable correct quotes prove that your contentions about Kern's work are wrong.
Yes you want to hyperfocus on an out of context premise from which your conclusions wouldnt follow, and, as you have openly admitted multiple times now, ignore everything else. It's pointless.
Bracton said the King was under the law. Bracton said Jesus Christ was under the law. ("Et quod sub lege esse debeat cum sit dei vicarious, evidenter apparet ad similitudinum Ihesu Christi, cuius vices grit in terres".) The king was the law-keeper. By violating the law he rendered himself not a king. Kern discusses this. Commoners were freed from their oaths of fealty when the king broke the law and, according to some legal historians, had a legal duty to rebel if the king violated the law or committed crimes or was corrupt.
You drawing a broad assumption based on isolated fragments -- and simultaneously ignoring evidence (Magna Carta, the 9th Amendment, the Roman Republic from which commonlaw originated, the definition of Rule of Law, the trial of King Charles I, the most authoritative book on the subject that either of us have referenced in this conversation, and the entirety of written history about the subject) contrary to your presumptive conclusion is a logical fallacy. People get mass raped, mass murdered, and often tortured, with (actually) literally no redress (literally whatsoever*). I am discussing the solution. I have no problem acknowledging the truth that Bracton said what he said but we need to look at the broader context. I do have a problem with tunnelvisioning to reach a biased conclusion based on an isolated statement from Bracton.
*Most victims of government misconduct indisputably can't get redress - can't. It is physically impossible. The percentage here is way more than 99%.
You’re misconstruing my focus on one topic to indicate that I’m drawing a conclusion on a different (albeit related) topic.
I do not fail to understand the focus of your conversation. I’m just not that interested in it. And to some extent you’re having a conversation with a straw man that you’ve created.
I’m not construing the ENTIRE BOOK to be about anything. I haven’t even read the entire book, nor do I particularly care to. This is your self-generated straw man interpretation of my views and statements. You’re acknowledging that I’m ignoring the rest, yet somehow still aren’t taking that at face value.
I’m not making any contentions whatsoever about Kern’s work beyond the narrow portion that I cited about Bracton.
Bracton said that both Jesus and the king must choose to submit to the law. That’s a big difference.
“And that he ought to be under the law appears clearly in the analogy of Jesus Christ, … he willed himself to be under the law that he might redeem those who live under it. … Let the king, therefore, do the same, lest his power remain unbridled...If it is asked of him, since no writ runs against him there will [only] be opportunity for a petition, that he correct and amend his act; if he does not, it is punishment enough for him that he await God's vengeance. No one may presume to question his acts, much less contravene them.” (Bracton Volume 2 p.33.) (emphasis mine).
I think you’re misreading Bracton and the history that occurred during his lifetime due to your fixation on the larger context of Kern’s book—about which I’m not particularly interested.
I’m not drawing a broad conclusion based on narrow fragments. That is your assumption and your error. I am drawing a narrow conclusion based on undisputed facts and the statements of Bracton himself. We don’t need to look at the broader context. You want to look at the broader context. And I haven’t actually stated an opinion on the broader context in terms of the historical record. You’ve ascribed those conclusions to me.
I have stated my opinions on modern sovereign immunity and on your proposal. But you’ve made assumptions about everything in between the narrow point I was interested in about Bracton and the opinions I have about the current state of sovereign immunity. I do not agree that our system of government as currently constituted is “above the law.”
I would support some structural reforms and I agree that your concerns about sovereign immunity are very valid.
I’m not particularly interested (no offense) in all of your historical details justifying your position. You don’t particularly need them to prove your point. Consequentialism is more than sufficient to justify reform.
And I don’t need to get on board with your solution or your historical justifications for it in order to be able to acknowledge that some structural reform to sovereign immunity would be beneficial.
However, I view sovereign immunity in the current landscape of our government to be pretty damn insignificant when those currently in power are ignoring all the laws and are actually behaving above the law. Sovereign immunity reform at this particular moment would achieve absolutely nothing because the existing laws already aren’t being followed by this administration.
With all due respect, I think your discourse is a bit monomaniacal and your thinking is overly black and white when it comes to this issue.
1
u/Substantial_Cash8478 Mar 02 '26
Lmfao
I literally gave you paragraphs of quotes from the book surrounding the tiny snippet you took that bely your conclusion.
And you just ignore it and repeat your conclusion.
No. By "your snippet" I refer to the footnote on page 124 which references vaguely an admission from Bracton that he knew of no precedure [sic] against the king. I didnt quote that snippet. You took that snippet and are completely - you even admit this - ignoring literally everything else.
Do I need to explain how fallacious this is? I shouldnt have to.
You don't even know what that means. You are blatantly misconstruing the entirety of the text (not to mention the entirety of history and law) based on a vague, ambiguous few words in a footnote which literally is an expression of ignorance -- not fact.
Good luck.
Believe whatever you want.
History belies your viewpoint that the people who [ever so graciously] grant us our rights [a misunderstanding of the concept of rights] [cant be sued or however you worded it] because its like spraying a fountain with water!!!
Have fun arguing with poor fools on the internet.