Section 7 of the Constitution doesn't grant a power for the king to do whatever he wishes.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Power's not what the Constitution was about.
A king without power is an absurdity.
Kings govern by popular assemblies only when they cannot do without them.
If the king refuses the constitution, I shall oppose him; if he accepts it, I shall defend him; and the day on which he gave himself up as my prisoner secured me more fully to his service than if he had promised me half his kingdom.
Nothing in the 14th Amendment or in any other constitutional provision suggests that the president may usurp legislative power to prevent a violation of the Constitution.
That a peasant may become king does not render the kingdom democratic.
The Constitution was about a limitation on power.
The constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it.
An occupying power has no right to make significant alterations in the character of the occupied society, to change the laws all around, without a strong security reason and so forth.
That the king can do no wrong is a necessary and fundamental principle of the English constitution.