Can a People Have Too Much Respect for the Law?

Can a people have too much respect for the law?

This might appear to be a strange question to ask. Americans, after all, seem to believe that it is impossible to have too much respect for the law. Yet a visitor to our shores in 1867 -- and an English barrister at that -- disagreed with this proposition.

The visitor was William Hepworth Dixon, whose book, New America, is a delight to read. By and large, he found us as a people quite likable, unlike some of the earlier travelers from England, such as Charles Dickens and Francis Trollope, both of whom agreed that we were simply deplorable barbarians. Not so Dixon. Yet there was one aspect of our national character that disagreed with him. Our "deference to the Law, and to every one who wears the semblance of lawful authority, is so complete…as to occasion a traveler some annoyance and more surprise," Dixon wrote. "Every dog in office is obeyed with such unquestioning meekness, that every dog in office is tempted to become a cur."

Dixon singled out the Justices of the Supreme Court, noting with apparent dismay that they are "treated with a degree of respect akin to that which is paid to an archbishop in Madrid and to a cardinal in Rome." Then he concludes with an admonition:

"More than once I have ventured to tell my friends, that this habit of deferring to law and lawful authority, good in itself, has gone with them into extremes, and would lead them, should they let it, into the frame of mind for yielding to the usurpation of any bold despot who may assail their liberties, like Caesar, in the name of law and order."

Our English traveler might be relieved to know that there is one group in contemporary American society that did not inherit our exaggerated respect for the law, namely, the very Justices of the Supreme Court and other high ranking figures in our judiciary system. For them, the mere fact that the elected representatives of a community have made certain laws that they deem fit and proper is no reason to respect these laws. Let a state pass laws that ban flag burning or gay marriage, and you will see just how quickly the appointed guardians of our legal system act to make these laws null and void. No undue deference for the mere idea of law restrains our nation's judiciary from deciding, by virtual fiat, what laws may stay on our books, and what laws must go.

This same contempt for the law, however, is not shared by the average American, who displays in 2005 the same exaggerated respect for the law that Dixon observed in 1867. In particular, the general populace continues to adhere to the view that those who have been entrusted with the task of interpreting the law -- especially those sitting on the highest court of our land -- must be deferred to, no matter how absurd or capricious their rulings may appear when approached from the perspective of sheer logic.

For example, the right of privacy, though nowhere explicitly recognized by the Constitution of the United States, is the basis of the woman's right to abort her child, despite the fact that we have known for some time now that a woman's child is in fact the product of both the male and the female. This same right of privacy, however, does not extend to the rights of a cancer victim to smoke pot in his bedroom, even when it has been prescribed by a physician, and even when the state in which he lives had passed a law that permitted the usage of marijuana under such circumstances.

To seek rhyme or reason in such decisions is as vain an inquiry as to seek the same qualities in the ukase of a Russian Czar or the whims of an Oriental despot. True, our judges must write their own justification for their acts of judicial usurpation, whereas traditional despots had to hire court intellectuals to do such menial jobs. But, hey, isn't that what law clerks are for?

Judges, even Supreme Court Justices, are no better than anyone else. This near worship of "the law" has been a useful tool of tyrants both petty and gross for a long time. Many 'sins' have been done because, after all, "it's legal."

So, if you think it's ok for people to be forced off of their property because someone with more money wants it, then let's hope it doesn't happen to you.