On the "rule of law"


Henry de Bracton, On the Laws and Customs of England (c. 1250), vol. 2, p. 33 of Thorne trans.,
bracton.law.harvard.edu/Unframed/English/v2/33.htm

The king has no equal.

The king has no equal within his realm, [Subjects cannot be the equals of the ruler,because he would thereby lose his rule, since equal can have no authority over equal.] nor a fortiori a superiorr because he would then be subject to those subjected to him. The king must not be under man but under God and under the law, because law makes the king, [Let him therefore bestow upon the law what the law bestows upon him, namely, rule and power.] for there is no rex where will rules rather than lex. Since he is the vicar of God, [And that he ought to be under the law appears clearly in the analogy of Jesus Christ, whose vicegerent on earth he is, for though many ways were open to Him for his ineffable redemption of the human race, the true mercy of God chose this most powerful way to destroy the devil's work, he would use not the power of force but the reason of justice. Thus he willed himself to be under the law that he might redeem those who live under it.  For He did not wish to use force but judgment. And in that same way the Blessed Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, Mother of our Lord, who by an extraordinary privilege was above law, nevertheless, in order to show an example of humility, did not refuse to be subjected to established laws. Let the king, therefore, do the same, lest his power remain unbridled.] there ought to be no one in his kingdom who surpasses him in the doing of justice, but he ought to be the last, or almost so, to receive it, when he is plaintiff. If it is asked of him, since no writ runs against him there will [only] be opportunity for a petition, that he correct and amend his act; if he does not, it is punishment enough for him that he await God's vengeance.  No one may presume to question his acts, much less contravene them.

Once again: 
"The King is under the Law for it is the Law that maketh him a King." (as translated by C. S. Lewis in English Literature in the Sixteenth Century, 1954, p. 48).

//////////////////////

A.V. Dicey, The Law of the Constitution, ch. 4 (8th ed. 1915), oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1714&Itemid=28 on three meanings of the phrase:
      “It means, in the first place, the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power, and excludes the use of arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the government.  Englishmen are ruled by law, and by the law alone; a man may with us be punished for a breach of law, but he can be punished for nothing else.”
       “It means, again, equality before the law, or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary Law Courts; the ‘rule of law’ in this sense excludes the idea of any exemption of officials from the duty of obedience to the law which governs other citizens or from the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals . . . .
      “The ‘rule of law,’ lastly, may be used as a formula for expressing the fact that with us the law of the constitution, the rules which in foreign countries naturally form part of a constitutional code, are not the source but the consequence of the rights of individuals, as defined and enforced by the Courts; that, in short, the principles of private law have with us been by the action of the Courts and Parliament so extended as to determine the position of the Crown and of its servants; thus the constitution is the result of the ordinary law of the land.”
 
//////////////////////

Friedrich A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, ch. 6 (1945) (also on p. 49 of the Reader's Digest condensed version (April 1945):
"Stripped of all technicalities, [the rule of law] means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand – rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one’s individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge.  Though this ideal can never be perfectly achieved . . . the essential point, that the discretion left to the executive organs wielding coercive power should be reduced as much as possible, is clear enough."

Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, ch. 14 (1960):
“Mankind has learned from long and painful experience that the law of liberty must possess certain attributes.  What are they?
      “The first point that must be stressed is that, because the rule of law means that government must never coerce an individual except in the enforcement of a known rule, it constitutes a limitation on the powers of all government, including the powers of the legislature.  It is a doctrine concerning what the law ought to be, concerning the general attributes that particular laws should possess.”
 . . . .
      “The second chief attribute which must be required of true laws is that they be known and certain.”
 . . . .
      “The third requirement of true law is equality.”
 
///////////////////////

Lon Fuller's definition of the rule of law is described in Daniel B. Rodriguez, Mathew D. McCubbins & Barry R. Weingast, The Rule of Law Unplugged, 59 Emory L.J. 1455, 1466-67 (2010) (footnotes omitted), 

Fuller views [the rule of law] as entailing a series of moral qualities that are characteristic of good law.  These include the requirements of:

• Generality, so that expectations of conduct are stated in rules widely applicable and impartially applied;

• Publicity, so that legal decision makers make available to the public the rules to be observed;

• Prospectivity, so that no one will be subject to the “threat of retrospective change”;

• Understandability, or what has also been called clarity;

• Consistency, so that no one is subject to contradictory rules;

• Possibility, that is, the prohibition of “rules that require conduct beyond the powers of the affected party”;

• Stability, so that rules do not change so frequently that parties cannot adequately gauge their actions and inactions; and

• Congruence between the stated rules and their actual administration.

////////////////////////

Paul Johnson, Laying Down the Law, The Wall St. Journal, March 10, 1999www-hsc.usc.edu/~hrkaslow/Governance/MFA/Laying%20Down%20the%20Law.pdf

"The most important political development of the second millennium was the firm establishment, first in one or two countries, then in many, of the rule of law. Its acceptance and enforcement in any society is far more vital to the happiness of the majority than is even democracy itself. For democracy, without the rule of law to uphold the wishes of the electorate, is worthless, as the history of the past half-century has shown again and again in Africa, Latin America and Asia. The Soviet Union had, in theory, a wonderfully democratic constitution, But it lacked the rule of law entirely, and as a result Stalin was able to murder 30 million of its citizens and die safely in his bed, unarraigned and unpunished.
"What do we mean by the rule of law? We mean a judicial regime in which everyone is equal before the law, and everyone--and every institution--is subject to it."

////////////////////////

Lawrence Solum, The Rule of Law, Legal Theory Lexicon, July 5, 2009lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2009/07/legal-theory-lexicon-the-rule-of-law.html
  


Last updated May 28, 2015.