If the king (the legislative power) had had authority to fix the punishments of these offences imperatively, he would naturally have said these offenders shall be amerced, and shall suffer judgment of the pillory and tumbrel, instead of thus simply expressing the opinion that they ought to be punished in that manner.
Spooner argues that the king's authority to impose punishments was not absolute.
Share
More from Lysander Spooner
And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to…
That the legislation of the king was of no authority over a jury, is further proved by the oath taken by the kings at their coronation.
What else than ignorance of the law is it that excuses persons under the years of discretion, and men of imbecile minds?
It would be a solecism and absurdity in government to allow such consequences as these.