“The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office . . . The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable . . .”

–The Federalist, No. 69

According to the passage, how is a king different from a constitutional president?

A. A king is subject to natural law.
B. A king is subject to the rule of law.
C. A president is subject to natural law.
D. A president is subject to the rule of law.

I'll be glad to check your answer.

D. A president is subject to the rule of law

According to the passage, the key difference between a king and a constitutional president is that a president is subject to the rule of law. This can be inferred from the statement that the President of the United States can be impeached, tried, and removed from office upon conviction of certain offenses such as treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors. In contrast, the person of the king of Great Britain is deemed sacred and inviolable, meaning that there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable. Therefore, a king is not subject to the rule of law, while a constitutional president is. Therefore, the correct answer is (D) A president is subject to the rule of law.