William Blackstone, that legendary
commentator on the laws of England, remarked that the law could not contain a
principle of revolution. Laws settle the order of things; revolutions unsettle
them. But James Wilson, one of the leading minds among the American Founders,
insisted that “a revolution principle certainly is, and certainly should be
taught as a principle for the constitution.”
For the law in America would begin
with the recognition that there could indeed be an unjust law. But that made
sense only if one understood that there was a body of principles by which one
could judge the rightness or wrongness, the justice or injustice, of those
measure that were enacted into law.
The philosopher John Locke unfolded
the logic of the matter in a series of questions. What was the source, he
asked, of the positive law, the law that was “posited” or enacted. Answer: the
legislature. What was the source of the legislature? Answer: the constitution,
for it tells of whether we have a legislature and of how many chambers.
But then what was the source of the
constitution? It had to be found, said, Locke in some source “antecedent to all
positive laws” and that authority was “depending wholly on the people,” on
their natural right to be governed with their own consent.
No comments:
Post a Comment