North Korea has been a hereditary monarchy, run by the same family since 1948. The founding dictator was Kim Il-Sung, followed by his son Kim Jong-Il. When that one croaked, the grandson Kim Jong-Un stepped in.

North Korea is famously not very prosperous. For instance, most residents lack food and electricity. The laws do not, however, permit commentary upon the country’s economic shortfalls.

The dictator is not bound by the law of the land. While the proles go hungry, he has his own personal train. He keeps it parked on a siding outside of his house. You may be sure that, when that train moves, his dining car is well stocked.

Since 1970, each North Korean has been required to wear a lapel pin with the image of Kim Il-Sung or Kim Jong-Il. Outside of the country, these are considered badges of slavery.

North Koreans have enjoyed significant freedom. They choose which of the two Kim dictators they want to wear. And now, freedom has expanded from two to three options: You can now have a lapel pin with the current Kim dictator.

Like I said, the dictator does not have to follow the law.

That characteristic distinguishes monarchies from representative governments. King George was famously above the law, but there was some pushback. An artifact of that pushback remains in the U.S. Constitution. Article II Section 3 provides that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

I say it remains, but has become a dead letter. The Supreme Court has recently beclowned itself by insisting that, in fact, the president is no longer bound by the laws of the land.

It used to be a standing joke that some politicians could shoot folks in the streets of New York. Also, such deaths are “natural causes” in New York.

It was not official, however, until the recent decision. Now, no one expects much from the Supremes: Historically they have delivered clinkers like Dred Scott v. John Sandford,

Toyosaburo Korematsu v. US, and more recently, Kelo v. New London.

Every year, they work to diminish respect for the courts. Now they have reached the ultimate conclusion as to law: It does not apply to the powerful.

The Supreme Court is a stunningly ethics-free zone. And maybe we can guess what the Supremes are thinking — they enjoy immunity, too, since no one can prosecute them!

— Andrews is a DeLand-area attorney and a longtime government critic.