This, of course, is the classic definition of executive power, which has been explained in detail above; indeed, from that moment on, Vattel immediately turned to a detailed discussion of the judicial function historically associated with the executive branch in the sense of law enforcement. 338 338 See id. §§ 163-168, pp. 187-91. It was not until much later in Vattel`s discussion that he turned to the power of the Chief Justice to make treaties and send ambassadors. 339 339 See id. bk. II, chap. XII, §§ 154-156, pp. 338-40. And in these contexts, Vattel does not use a variant of “executive” to describe the magistrate; Rather, it is the “sovereign.” 340 340 See id. Far from implying that the latter powers are “consecutive” to the “executive power”, Vattel makes it clear that they have nothing to do with it – they are simply different branches of what the English called the prerogative.
341 341 For a similar example, consider the assertion of the main supporters of the Royal Residual that “Jean De Lolme. describes the executive power of the king as the ability to serve as “representative and guardian of all power and collective majesty of the nation”; sends and receives ambassadors; it forms alliances; and has the privilege of declaring war and making peace. Prakash & Ramsey, Executive Power over Foreign Affairs, op. cit. Cit. note 44, p. 270 (cited J.L. De Lolme, The Constitution of England 50 (photo. Reprint 1999) (London: A. Hancock 1821)).
But de Lolme didn`t say that at all. Its chapter “On the Executive Power” follows its chapter on “On the Legislative Power”. The first paragraph says, “If Parliament is prorogued or dissolved. Its laws are still in force: the king remains responsible for their execution and receives the necessary power. De Lolme, Constitution of England, op. cit. Cit. Note 105, Bk. I, chap. IV, p. 71 (emphasis added). De Lolme then enumerates the other prerogatives of the king, beginning with the clearly legislative right to veto draft decrees: “the part of the legislative power attributed to him” by “giving or refusing to give his assent to the bills submitted to him”.
De Lomme`s reference to foreign policy powers ranks eighth in a list of additional authorities he discusses after the king`s executive power. Id., p. 73. Close Make no mistake: Blackstone (and many others) has stated that in addition to executive power, the king claims a number of foreign policy powers as part of his prerogative. 342 342 See 1 Blackstone, op. cit. Footnote 78, pp. *252-261. Close and Blackstone (and many others) called the crown “the executive,” “the executive judge,” “the executive branch of government,” and sometimes even “the executive branch.” 343 343 See id. at *336 (“We have now outlined all the broad outlines of this voluminous title of the law, the chief justice of the executive, or the majesty of the king. [and] the power of the executive judge or the prerogative of the Crown.
»); id. at *336–337 (“[The reforms after the Restoration] together give the executive such a convincing energy in relation to the people themselves. How will he make amends for the loss of external prerogative? The strict commandments of privilege have given way to the softer voice of influence. De Lolme used the same usage: but all these general precautions to protect the rights of Parliament, i.e. To protect those of the nation itself against the efforts of the executive power would be in vain if the deputies themselves remained personally exposed to them. Since the executive branch is incapable of openly attacking the two legislative bodies, and of carrying out an almost general attack by the violent exercise of its prerogatives, the executive, by sharing the same prerogatives, could have access, and sometimes out of interest, sometimes out of fear, to guide the general will by influencing the will of the individual. De Lolme, Constitution of England, op. cit.
Cit. Note 105, Bk. I, chap. VIII, pp. 96-97. As an American example, consider Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, which prohibits states from “entering into any agreement or covenant. with a foreign power” without congressional authorization. Const. of the United States I, § 10, Cl. 3. There is a sentence in which Blackstone could be read as casually referring to the king`s powers which “constitute the executive branch of government.” See 1 Blackstone, supra note 78, p. 281 (“[H]aving.
considers, on the whole, those branches of the King`s prerogative which contribute to his royal dignity and constitute the executive branch of government. In the context — not least because the subset of powers mentioned includes the Crown veto, id. to *250, *261, which everyone, including Blackstone, agreed was legislative according to his classification — it seems preferable to read this as a metonymic reference to the constitution of the Crown entity. To read it as a thoughtful conceptual reference to a governmental function, one would have to oppose the entire organization of Blackstone`s constitutional framework, see footnotes 192-207 above and the accompanying text, ignoring Blackstone`s own repeated definitions of “executive branch”, see footnote 190 above and accompanying text, ignoring its immutable use of “prerogative” instead of “executive power”. Describe the conceptual authorities throughout the referenced section. see 1 Blackstone, op. cit. Cit. note 78, pp. 236-279, and contradicts any other contemporary treatment of the issue, see footnotes 253-257 above and accompanying text.
