executive　or　governor；　for　the　governor；　as　administrator；　should
  stand　under　the　authority　of　the　law；　and　is　bound　by　it　under　the
  supreme　control　of　the　legislator。　The　legislative　authority　may
  therefore　deprive　the　governor　of　his　power；　depose　him；　or　reform　his
  administration；　but　not　punish　him。　This　is　the　proper　and　only
  meaning　of　the　common　saying　in　England；　〃The　King…　as　the　supreme
  executive　power…　can　do　no　wrong。〃　For　any　such　application　of
  punishment　would　necessarily　be　an　act　of　that　very　executive　power　to
  which　the　supreme　right　to　compel　according　to　law　pertains；　and　which
  would　itself　be　thus　subjected　to　coercion；　which　is
  self…contradictory。
  3。　Further；　neither　the　legislative　power　nor　the　executive　power
  ought　to　exercise　the　judicial　function；　but　only　appoint　judges　as
  magistrates。　It　is　the　people　who　ought　to　judge　themselves；　through
  those　of　the　citizens　who　are　elected　by　free　choice　as　their
  representatives　for　this　purpose；　and　even　specially　for　every　process
  or　cause。　For　the　judicial　sentence　is　a　special　act　of　public
  distributive　justice　performed　by　a　judge　or　court　as　a　constitutional
  administrator　of　the　law；　to　a　subject　as　one　of　the　people。　Such　an
  act　is　not　invested　inherently　with　the　power　to　determine　and
  assign　to　any　one　what　is　his。　Every　individual　among　the　people　being
  merely　passive　in　this　relation　to　the　supreme　power；　either　the
  executive　or　the　legislative　authority　might　do　him　wrong　in　their
  determinations　in　cases　of　dispute　regarding　the　property　of
  individuals。　It　would　not　be　the　people　themselves　who　thus
  determined；　or　who　pronounced　the　judgements　of　〃guilty〃　or　〃not
  guilty〃　regarding　their　fellow…citizens。　For　it　is　to　the
  determination　of　this　issue　in　a　cause　that　the　court　has　to　apply　the
  law；　and　it　is　by　means　of　the　executive　authority；　that　the　judge
  holds　power　to　assign　to　every　one　his　own。　Hence　it　is　only　the
  people　that　properly　can　judge　in　a　cause…　although　indirectly
  representatives　elected　and　deputed　by　themselves；　as　in　a　jury。　It
  would　even　be　beneath　the　dignity　of　the　sovereign　head　of　the　state
  to　play　the　judge；　for　this　would　be　to　put　himself　into　a　position　in
  which　it　would　be　possible　to　do　wrong；　and　thus　to　subject　himself　to
  the　demand　for　an　appeal　to　a　still　higher　power　（a　rege　male
  informato　ad　regem　melius　informandum）。
  It　is　by　the　co…operation　of　these　three　powers…　the　legislative；
  the　executive；　and　the　judicial…　that　the　state　realizes　its　autonomy。
  This　autonomy　consists　in　its　organizing；　forming；　and　maintaining
  itself　in　accordance　with　the　laws　of　freedom。　In　their　union　the
  welfare　of　the　state　is　realized。　Salus　reipublicae　suprema　lex。*　By
  this　is　not　to　be　understood　merely　the　individual　well…being　and
  happiness　of　the　citizens　of　the　state；　for…　as　Rousseau　asserts…　this
  end　may　perhaps　be　more　agreeably　and　more　desirably　attained　in　the
  state　of　nature；　or　even　under　a　despotic　government。　But　the
  welfare　of　the　state；　as　its　own　highest　good；　signifies　that
  condition　in　which　the　greatest　harmony　is　attained　between　its
  constitution　and　the　principles　of　right…　a　condition　of　the　state
  which　reason　by　a　categorical　imperative　makes　it　obligatory　upon　us
  to　strive　after。
  *＇〃The　health　of　the　state　is　the　highest　law。〃＇
  Constitutional　and　Juridical　Consequences　arising　from
  the　Nature　of　the　Civil　Union。
  A。　Right　of　the　Supreme　Power；　Treason；　Dethronement；
  Revolution；　Reform。
  The　origin　of　the　supreme　power　is　practically　inscrutable　by　the
  people　who　are　placed　under　its　authority。　In　other　words；　the　subject
  need　not　reason　too　curiously　in　regard　to　its　origin　in　the　practical
  relation；　as　if　the　right　of　the　obedience　due　to　it　were　to　be
  doubted　（jus　controversum）。　For　as　the　people；　in　order　to　be　able
  to　abjudicate　with　a　title　of　right　regarding　the　supreme　power　in　the
  state；　must　be　regarded　as　already　united　under　one　common　legislative
  will；　it　cannot　judge　otherwise　than　as　the　present　supreme　head　of
  the　state　（summus　imperans）　wills。　The　question　has　been　raised　as
  to　whether　an　actual　contract　of　subjection　（pactum　subjectionis
  civilis）　originally　preceded　the　civil　government　as　a　fact；　or
  whether　the　power　arose　first；　and　the　law　only　followed　afterwards；
  or　may　have　followed　in　this　order。　But　such　questions；　as　regards　the
  people　already　actually　living　under　the　civil　law；　are　either
  entirely　aimless；　or　even　fraught　with　subtle　danger　to　the　state。
  For；　should　the　subject；　after　having　dug　down　to　the　ultimate
  origin　of　the　state；　rise　in　opposition　to　the　present　ruling
  authority；　he　would　expose　himself　as　a　citizen；　according　to　the
  law　and　with　full　right；　to　be　punished；　destroyed；　or　outlawed。　A　law
  which　is　so　holy　and　inviolable　that　it　is　practically　a　crime　even　to
  cast　doubt　upon　it；　or　to　suspend　its　operation　for　a　moment；　is
  represented　of　itself　as　necessarily　derived　from　some　supreme；
  unblameable　lawgiver。　And　this　is　the　meaning　of　the　maxim；　〃All
  authority　is　from　God〃；　which　proposition　does　not　express　the
  historical　foundation　of　the　civil　constitution；　but　an　ideal
  principle　of　the　practical　reason。　It　may　be　otherwise　rendered
  thus：　〃It　is　a　duty　to　obey　the　law　of　the　existing　legislative　power；
  be　its　origin　what　it　may。〃
  Hence　it　follows；　that　the　supreme　power　in　the　state　has　only
  rights；　and　no　（compulsory）　duties　towards　the　subject。　Further；　if
  the　ruler　or　regent；　as　the　organ　of　the　supreme　power；　proceeds　in
  violation　of　the　laws；　as　in　imposing　taxes；　recruiting　soldiers；
  and　so　on；　contrary　to　the　law　of　equality　in　the　distribution　of
  the　political　burdens；　the　subject　may　oppose　complaints　and
  objections　（gravamina）　to　this　injustice；　but　not　active　resistance。
  There　cannot　even　be　an　Article　contained　in　the　political
  constitution　that　would　make　it　possible　for　a　power　in　the　state；
  in　case　of　the　transgression　of　the　constitutional　laws　by　the　supreme
  authority；　to　resist　or　even　to　restrict　it　in　so　doing。　For；
  whoever　would　restrict　the　supreme　power　of　the　state　must　have
  more；　or　at　least　equal；　power　as　compared　with　the　power　that　is　so
  restricted；　and　if　competent　to　command　the　subjects　to　resist；　such　a
  one　would　also　have　to　be　able　to　protect　them；　and　if　he　is　to　be
  considered　capable　of　judging　what　is　right　in　every　case；　he　may　also
  publicly　order　resistance。　But　such　a　one；　and　not　the　actual
  authority；　would　then　be　the　supreme　power；　which　is　contradictory。
  The　supreme　sovereign　power；　then；　in　proceeding　by　a　minister　who
  is　at　the　same　time　the　ruler　of　the　state；　consequently　becomes
  despotic；　and　the　expedient　of　giving　the　people　to　imagine…　when　they
  have　properly　only　legislative　influence…　that　they　act　by　their
  deputies　by　way　of　limiting　the　sovereign　authority；　cannot　so　mask
  and　disguise　the　actual　despotism　of　such　a　government　that　it　will
  not　appear　in　the　measures　and　means　adopted　by　the　minister　to
  carry　out　his　function。　The　people；　while　represented　by　their
  deputies　in　parliament；　under　such　conditions；　may　have　in　these
  warrantors　of　their　freedom　and　rights；　persons　who　are　keenly
  interested　on　their　own　account　and　their　families；　and　who　look　to
  such　a　minister　for　the　benefit　of　his　influence　in　the　army；　navy；
  and　public　offices。　And　hence；　instead　of　offering　resistance　to　the
  undue　pretensions　of　the　government…　whose　public　declarations　ought
  to　carry　a　prior　accord　on　the　part　of　the　people；　which；　however；
  cannot　be　allowed　in　peace；　they　are　rather　always　ready　to　play
  into　the　hands　of　the　government。　Hence　the　so…called　limited
  political　constitution；　as　a　constitution　of　the　internal　rights　of
  the　state；　is　an　unreality；　and　instead　of　being　consistent　with
  right；　it　is　only　a　principle　of　expediency。　And　its　aim　is　not　so
  much　to　throw　all　possible　obstacles　in　the　way　of　a　powerful　violator
  of　popular　rights　by　his　arbitrary　influence　upon　the　government；　as
  rather　to　cloak　it　over　under　the　illusion　of　a　right　of　opposition
  conceded　to　the　people。
  Resistance　on　the　part　of　the　people　to　the　supreme　legislative
  power　of　the　state　is　in　no　case　legitimate；　for　it　is　only　by
  submission　to　the　universal　legislative　will；　that　a　condition　of
  law　and　order　is　possible。　Hence　there　is　no　right　of　sedition；　and
  still　less　of　rebellion；　belonging　to　the　people。　And　least　of　all；
  when　the　supreme　power　is　embodied　in　an　individual　monarch；　is
  there　any　justification；　under　the　pretext　of　his　abuse　of　power；
  for　seizing　his　person　or　taking　away　his　life　（monarchomachismus
  sub　specie　tyrannicidii）。　The　slightest　attempt　of　this　kind　is　high
  treason　（proditio　eminens）；　and　a　traitor　of　this　sort　who　aims　at　the
  overthrow　of　his　country　may　be　punished；　as　a　political　parricide；
  even　with　death。　It　is　the　duty　of　the