The mind of the king is presumed to be in conformity with the law, and with what it should be, especially in doubtful cases.

Explanation

The sovereign's intent is presumed to align with what the law requires — in cases of ambiguity, the sovereign's acts are construed as lawful rather than unlawful.

Where this applies

• A government regulation is ambiguously worded, and the court presumes the sovereign intended to act lawfully rather than to exceed its constitutional authority.
• A royal charter grants land in terms that could be read broadly or narrowly; the court construes the grant in conformity with existing law, presuming the king intended to act within legal bounds.
• A presidential executive order is challenged as potentially overreaching, but the court interprets it in the manner most consistent with the law, giving the sovereign the benefit of the doubt in a close case.