The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
According to Law
A keynote address to the Symposium on Common Good Constitutionalism.
In October 2022, a symposium was held at Harvard on my colleague Adrian Vermeule's book Common Good Constitutionalism. Though I have many disagreements with the project, I was honored to present the keynote address, "According to Law," which is now among the papers published in the latest issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Here's the abstract:
What we ought to do, according to law, isn't always what we ought to do, given the existence of law. Sometimes we need to know what a legal system says we should do, under rules prevailing in a certain time and place. And sometimes we need to know what we should actually do, in the moral circumstances this legal system presents.
Many fights between positivists and natural lawyers result from muddying these two inquiries. But we have good reasons, intellectual and moral, to keep them distinct. Even if prevailing social rules have no moral force of their own, those who make claims about them still owe their audiences a moral duty of candor. And the stronger our moral commitments, the more we ought to approach existing legal systems warily.
Insisting that the law already reflects good morals can blind us to some very real flaws in our prevailing rules—and to the need for some very hard work in reforming them. To this extent, common-good-constitutionalist claims too often have all "the advantages of theft over honest toil": they can lead us to wish away precisely those disagreements and failings that make social and political institutions so necessary.
And from the introduction:
As a legal positivist—indeed, an originalist—asked to address a symposium on common good constitutionalism, I feel somewhat like a giraffe being asked to address a meeting of the American Chemical Society. Despite a keen sense of being somewhat out of place, I hope I can nevertheless be useful here, offering a view from the sidelines.
For more, read the whole thing!
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Is it natural law that sex should occur between a man and a woman connected with biological reprdictions, in a manner that makes other forms a “crime against nature?” This is after all the common-law crime most explicitly connected to the concept of natural law.
Or is it natural law that people should be free to do whatever they want, with government intrusion into the matter inconsistent with nature?
The fact that “natural law” people have repeatedly claimed that “natural law” obviously and unambiguously supports opposite positions on this issue, both convinced an appeal to natural law could lead to no other outcome, illustrates the difficulties of appeals to natural law.
The ventriloquist is at least able to appear personally silent, enough to convince rhe audience that the voice is eminating from the dummy. I don’t think natural law proponents have been able to master even this. If the same dummy is used by two ventiloquists, the dummy at least looks the same. Not so with natural law arguments. Change the practioner, and the natural law dummy itself completely changes its form.
Old rule of mind: no-one who ever investigated natural law found that it differed from what they had already believed it would be.
People disagree about some basic moral principles, as they disagree about religion and everything else. That is why laws are codified. However it is still true that many laws are based on natural law.
Whether Common-Good Constitutionalist, Originalist, or Living Constitutionalist; regardless of politics or partisanship; and irrespective of the claims on the benefit or peril of institutions, the (emphasis-added) principle below seems useful.
Keeping citizens in jail for 3 years - without trial - as is true for the DC Gulag ones, proves law is below any moral standard.
Shame to those who follow sub-standard morals and likewise sub-standard ethics.
It isn't hard to find organizations talking about people being held without bail for similar periods before trial all across the country. Any Jan 6 defendants in that boat are sharing an experience that has been true for thousands of the accused for a long, long time. Yet it seems that law and order Republicans are the ones most against "bail reform" movements for anyone not charged with crimes they are alleged to have committed in D.C. on Jan 6 on the Capitol grounds.
Shame on deplorable, un-American insurrectionists and the low-lifes who support them.