PT137.S1.P4.Q26 > Analytics

Hide analysis

Can a sovereign have unlimited legal power. ██ █ █████████ ████ ████ █████████ █████ ██████ ████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ███ ███ █████ █████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████████ ███ ███ █████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ █████ ██████ ███████ █████████████ ███ ███████ ████████████ ████ ███████████ █████████ ██ █████████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████████████

Question · Can a sovereign be omnipotent?

If so, then the sovereign has the power to limit its own power which means it no longer has unlimited power. That's the paradox of omnipotence.

OPA · Sovereign omnipotence can be a source of difficulty for soverigns

E.g., the English and French monarchies experienced this

OPA · It can be good for sovereigns to have their power be limited

E.g., having absolute power means you can refuse to honor debts which means that you can't get a loan.

██ ███ ████████ ██ ██████ █████ ████████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ████████ ████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████████ ████████ ███████ ██████ █████ ████████ ██████ ██████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ██ █████ ████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████████ ████ ███ █████ █████ ██ ████████ █████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██ ██████████ ████████ █████ ████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ██████████ █████████████ █████ ████████ ██████ █ ██████████ ███ █████████████ ███████ ███████████ ██████ ███ ████████ ████ ████████████ ███ █████████████ █████████ ████ ████ ████████ ████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██████ ████████ █████ ████ ████████ ████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████ █████████

OPA Example · French and English's unlimited power hurt them

These sovereigns failed to pay debt and expropriated property. Consequently, creditors started demanding high interest rates to capture risk of default.

█████ ███ ████████ █████ ████ ███ ██████████████ ██████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██████ ████ █████████ ████████ ███████████ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ █████ ████████ ███████████ ██ █████ ███████████ ██████████ █████████ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ████████████ █████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ████████ █████████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████████ ██████████ ████ █ ████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ █████████ █████████ ███ ████████ █████ █████ ███████ ███████ █████████ ████ ███ █████ █████ █████ ███ ██████

OPA Solution / Conclusion · The Parliament's limit of the Crown's power resolved the paradox

The Parliament was able to credibly commit the Crown to honor is debts. Consequently, the Crown was able to borrow at a much lower rate.

██████ ██ ██████ █████████ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████████ ████████████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ████████ █████ ██████ ███

OPA legacy · Constitutional limits to powers as a benefit is now the conventional view

███ ████ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ █████████████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ███

Author’s Critique · Constitutions can fail to limit power

Author’s Argument · Did not solve the problem; merely shifted it

The paradox of omnipotence still exists. All the constitution does is to take omnipotence away from the Crown and give it to itself, the Parliament.

Passage Style

Critique or debate

Problem-analysis

26.

Suppose the Parliament in England █████ █ ██████████ ██ ██████ █ █████████ ██████ ██ █ █████████████ █████ ██ ███ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ████

the commitment will █████████ ████████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ██████ ██ █████████ █████

It’s not clear why Parliament’s making a commitment to a multinational body would undermine their ability to get credit. There’s no suggestion that making this commitment would decrease creditors confidence on Parliament’s willingness to pay back loans.

lenders will become ████ █████████ ████ ██████████ ████ █████ ███ █████

It’s not clear how creditors would perceive the multinational body and its ability to put limits on Parliament’s ability to renege on commitments.

32%

Parliament has the █████ █████████ ██ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ████

Supported, because we’re told Parliament lacks legal power over the extent of its own power and that it lacks the power to bind itself. So Parliament’s commitment to the multinational body isn’t something that Parliament can bind itself to. In other words, it can back out if it wants to.

51%

the commercial interests ███████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████

We have no evidence of how commercial interests would perceive of the multinational body.

the commitment will ████████ ████████████ █████ █████

Actually, we’re told Parliament lacks legal power over the extent of its own power and that it lacks the power to bind itself. It’s not clear how committing to the multinational body would increase Parliament’s power. It already has unlimited power.

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

It takes about five minutes.

Take the free diagnostic

More free LSAT prep: Sample LSAT questions Full-length diagnostic & practice test All free LSAT resources

PrepTest 137 - Section 1 - Passage 4 - Question 26

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action

PrepTest 137 - Section 1 - Passage 4 - Question 26

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Want to know why the right answer is right?