In 1484, the English Parliament accepted the "Royal Law of Titles" (titulus regilus). The law retroactively abolished the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Vaudeville in 1464, on the grounds that Elizabeth and her mother used witchcraft to make the king marry her, after he promised marriage to another. The aftermath of the annulment was to declare their offspring illegal, and so Richard III became King of England. Side effects of this kind should not affect MPs' positions on matters of principle, it has been explained, while the validity of witchcraft obtained through witchcraft is a matter of principle.

This parliamentary tradition may soon be renewed in the Knesset as well. Basically, it's unfair. According to the so-called basic concept, according to John Rawls, "Justice as Fairness," a law should be derived from general considerations that look to the future. In order to obtain a fair legal result, one must generally ask "what to do about the man whom the King desires to visit," and put the person behind a screen of ignition, which prevents him from knowing who his answer will be. Role reversal games, the Scroll teaches us, are a test recipe for fairness testing.

There is internal logic in preference for candidates who are beyond any suspicion of violating a law. Liberman's voters have recently expressed such a strong preference. However, in most countries of the world, voters do not deny the possibility of electing a president or prime minister even for those who have been prosecuted, or even convicted of criminals. This is the case in the United Kingdom, in the United States, and in almost every other democratic country. I know of no country in the world that has decided that the decision of an executive in an individual to prosecute a person disqualifies him from being elected as head of state. An unelected role in determining power.

Gantz, Lieberman and others, therefore, wish to emphasize the importance they attach to cleanliness, above and beyond driving in the rest of the world. Fine. But anyone who thinks that the law they are proposing meets minimum standards of fairness should also accept the scenario proposed by Justice Minister Amir Ohana: that the current Knesset will have a law extending the cooling-off period to former 15-year chiefs. For, if with universal applicability, the "unthinkable" family would apply, and it would apply from the next Knesset, so that he would not be retroactively suspected.

Nevertheless, if a petition had been filed by Prime Minister Netanyahu or his movement because of such a hypothetical law, the legal conclusion to my mind would have been that the petition should be dismissed without justification. Further strengthening the trend to place the courts in the role of recent arbiters on all matters of state and public affairs - to me, seems to be even more difficult than a personal public fault, disqualified. Basic fairness must be sued, first and foremost, by the members of the legislature themselves.

Prof. Ron Shapira is President of the Peres Academic Center