I had intended to write a post on Liberalism and the Rule of Law, but I simply don’t have the time this morning. As a place holder, I’ll simply mention that Lord Bracton, an English jurist writing in the 13th century wrote that “it is only when an expression of the prince’s will is in conformity with this lex regia that his will becomes a binding law.” He wasn’t the first to express such things, but in terms of setting the English-American common law on such a path, he was fairly influential. It’s a pretty extraordinary claim, when you looked at the available evidence. Empirically, it looks like legal authority springs from the force the King can bring to bear. But, here, Bracton is claiming that the king springs from the law; not that the law springs from the king.
That’s one of the things at the heart of liberalism — that authority springs from the law not vice versa.
O.k., so I kind of got the post up. But, otherwise, consider this an open thread.
Did you see that Richard Mellon Scaife endorsed Clinton– after all the money and time and effort he spent digging through the Clinton’s personal lives in the 1990s– which spread to all the Impeachment stuff. Any true DEM– along with her slam against party activists like MoveOn.Org this weekend — should reject her based on that alone.
that authority springs from the law not vice versa.
Except in the case of the Supreme Court. Then the law does spring from Authority.
Well, the Supreme Court since about 1958 or so.