The right. That is, the manner (mishpat) after which he shall proceed, having no one to control him, when he has the power in his hands. (Challoner)

He intimates that the kings will frequently act in a tyrannical manner, ver. 11. (Menochius)

But the holy Fathers observe, that herein they do what is unjust, and contrary to God’s law. St. Gregory remarks, that Achab is punished for taking the vineyard of Naboth, (3 Kings xxi.) while David will not take a piece of ground belonging to Ornan, even for an altar, without first paying a just price for it, 1 Paralipomenon xxi. 25. Some of these rights or customs are prohibited to the king, Deuteronomy xvii. 16. It is true, kings enjoy great prerogatives above judges, but never contrary to the law. They cannot take their subjects’ goods: but the latter are bound to contribute to the maintenance of government; and, if they refuse, may be compelled. If kings should be guilty of excesses, “yet them are not to be deposed by the people,....but must be tolerated with patience, peace, and meekness, till God, by his sovereign authority, left in his Church, dispose of them, which his divine wisdom and goodness often deferred to do, as here he expressly forewarneth, (ver. 18) because he will punish the sins of the people by suffering evil princes to reign,” Job xxxiv. 30. (Conc. Later. c. iii. de hœret.[Fourth Lateran Council, constitution iii., On Heretics?]) (Worthington) See St. Thomas Aquinas, 2. 2. q. 12. a. 2.

We may here also remark, that the people petitioned for a king, yet God made the choice; and, when he proved rebellious, selected another by the hand of Samuel, though he permitted the former to enjoy his dignity till death, chap. xiii., and xxxi. (Haydock)

Grotius (Jur. i. 1., and 4.) maintains that Samuel here proposes the just rights of the king, and that the prince has a greater right to any one’s personal property, for the public good, than he has himself. In effect, the eastern kings regarded their subjects as slaves. But those who governed the Hebrews were to follow a different conduct; and Samuel is so far from approving of what some of them would do, that he mentions their tyranny, in order to dissuade the people from what they so inconsiderately requested. (Calmet)

The misconduct of rulers, is one of the most trying inconveniences to which a nation can be exposed. In such circumstances, “bear, says a pagan historian, (Haydock) with the luxury and avarice of those who hold dominion, as with other natural evils. There will be vices as long as men subsist, but neither will these continue for ever, and they are compensated by the intervention of better things or men.” Meliorum interventu pensantur. (Tacitus)

Grotius at last seems to conclude, (Sup. c. iv. p. 97) that the right of the king here specified is only apparent, in as much as it includes “the obligation of making no resistance.” (Haydock)