February 15 marks the 270th birthday of the English philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham. Bentham is typically remembered for his formulation of the principle of utility: the greatest happiness of the greatest number as the measure of legislation. He’s also known for instructing that his body be preserved as an “auto-icon” and the apocryphal story that the body is regularly brought out for board meetings at the University College London.
But in these days, when judges are de facto legislators, what we ought to remember Bentham for is his perspicacious warning about the danger of judicial power. Judges in Bentham’s Great Britain were supposed to be limited by the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. As the ultimate authority, Parliament had the uncontrollable ability to make, enlarge, or abrogate laws. Courts had a role in interpreting parliamentary enactments and expounding the customary law of the realm, but they could not overturn an Act of Parliament as unconstitutional.
Despite the constitutional limitations on the British judiciary, Bentham noticed a tendency in the judges to aggrandize their office through interpretative chicanery. Parliament, the judges oft observed, would not knowingly enact any law contrary to reason; therefore, the judiciary had to construe statutes to ensure a reasonable result. And what is reasonable? “[F]or my part I will speak plainly,” Bentham declared, “and confess that with me to be most evidently contrary to reason, is to be most evidently contrary to my reason, i.e., to what I like.” The same tendency, Bentham concluded, was true of the judges and was obvious in their rulings.
Bentham saw a similar judicial legerdemain used in the exposition of the common law. Under the pretense of merely declaring what was pre-existing customary law, the judges created new law and built upon judicial precedents to direct the law’s development to suit their own inclinations. If they came across an earlier case that was incongruent with their policy preferences, the judges again turned to the inward reason of the law. “The trick is,” Bentham wrote, “when [the judges] are satisfied that the thing is not Law, say it is not reason.” This allows for long existing precedent to be overturned and replaced.
To counter the unbridled power of the judges, Bentham proposed that all laws be codified. The citizen, Bentham believed, should be able to search and study the laws that applied to him rather than guess about what a judge believed was reasonable. Moreover, Parliament was subject to regular election, and thus the people could exercise some influence and control over the lawmaking body of the realm via the franchise. With the judiciary, the people had no avenue of remonstrance or control.
Modern American judges use many of the same tricks that Bentham inveighed against, but to a degree unimaginable in Bentham’s day. For example, despite the U.S. Constitution specifically providing that government may take the life, liberty, or property of a convicted criminal if proper procedures are followed, many judges and academics insist that the death penalty is per se unconstitutional. They argue that capital punishment is unreasonable and that established, written constitutional law evolves to suit the judges’ conception of a good society.
Similarly, the Supreme Court has ruled that constitutional safeguards requiring “due process of law” grant the courts the power to review the substance – that is, the reasonableness – of all legislation. This has set the courts up as super-legislatures examining various federal and state statutes under a sliding scale of scrutiny. Today, the courts evaluate the policy objectives of everything from marriage law to immigration regulations. Enactments contrary to the judges’ personal opinions are declared unreasonable and struck from the code books. This doctrine of “substantive due process” has worked a great unconstitutional shift of power away from the people and their representatives to the federal judiciary.
We would do well to remember Jeremy Bentham on his 270th birthday. At the heart of Bentham’s criticisms were concerns about unelected and unaccountable officials making law for the people. Bentham recognized that only those beholden to the people should be permitted to make law. We too should seize on this principle as we seek to reform our constitutional order.
William J. Watkins, Jr. is a research fellow at the Independent Institute and author of Crossroads for Liberty: Recovering the Anti-Federalist Values of America’s First Constitution (2016, Independent Institute).
February 15 marks the 270th birthday of the English philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham. Bentham is typically remembered for his formulation of the principle of utility: the greatest happiness of the greatest number as the measure of legislation. He’s also known for instructing that his body be preserved as an “auto-icon” and the apocryphal story that the body is regularly brought out for board meetings at the University College London.
But in these days, when judges are de facto legislators, what we ought to remember Bentham for is his perspicacious warning about the danger of judicial power. Judges in Bentham’s Great Britain were supposed to be limited by the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. As the ultimate authority, Parliament had the uncontrollable ability to make, enlarge, or abrogate laws. Courts had a role in interpreting parliamentary enactments and expounding the customary law of the realm, but they could not overturn an Act of Parliament as unconstitutional.
Despite the constitutional limitations on the British judiciary, Bentham noticed a tendency in the judges to aggrandize their office through interpretative chicanery. Parliament, the judges oft observed, would not knowingly enact any law contrary to reason; therefore, the judiciary had to construe statutes to ensure a reasonable result. And what is reasonable? “[F]or my part I will speak plainly,” Bentham declared, “and confess that with me to be most evidently contrary to reason, is to be most evidently contrary to my reason, i.e., to what I like.” The same tendency, Bentham concluded, was true of the judges and was obvious in their rulings.
Bentham saw a similar judicial legerdemain used in the exposition of the common law. Under the pretense of merely declaring what was pre-existing customary law, the judges created new law and built upon judicial precedents to direct the law’s development to suit their own inclinations. If they came across an earlier case that was incongruent with their policy preferences, the judges again turned to the inward reason of the law. “The trick is,” Bentham wrote, “when [the judges] are satisfied that the thing is not Law, say it is not reason.” This allows for long existing precedent to be overturned and replaced.
To counter the unbridled power of the judges, Bentham proposed that all laws be codified. The citizen, Bentham believed, should be able to search and study the laws that applied to him rather than guess about what a judge believed was reasonable. Moreover, Parliament was subject to regular election, and thus the people could exercise some influence and control over the lawmaking body of the realm via the franchise. With the judiciary, the people had no avenue of remonstrance or control.
Modern American judges use many of the same tricks that Bentham inveighed against, but to a degree unimaginable in Bentham’s day. For example, despite the U.S. Constitution specifically providing that government may take the life, liberty, or property of a convicted criminal if proper procedures are followed, many judges and academics insist that the death penalty is per se unconstitutional. They argue that capital punishment is unreasonable and that established, written constitutional law evolves to suit the judges’ conception of a good society.
Similarly, the Supreme Court has ruled that constitutional safeguards requiring “due process of law” grant the courts the power to review the substance – that is, the reasonableness – of all legislation. This has set the courts up as super-legislatures examining various federal and state statutes under a sliding scale of scrutiny. Today, the courts evaluate the policy objectives of everything from marriage law to immigration regulations. Enactments contrary to the judges’ personal opinions are declared unreasonable and struck from the code books. This doctrine of “substantive due process” has worked a great unconstitutional shift of power away from the people and their representatives to the federal judiciary.
We would do well to remember Jeremy Bentham on his 270th birthday. At the heart of Bentham’s criticisms were concerns about unelected and unaccountable officials making law for the people. Bentham recognized that only those beholden to the people should be permitted to make law. We too should seize on this principle as we seek to reform our constitutional order.
William J. Watkins, Jr. is a research fellow at the Independent Institute and author of Crossroads for Liberty: Recovering the Anti-Federalist Values of America’s First Constitution (2016, Independent Institute).
About the Author: admin
Related posts
Not so fast on that Trump endorses the 'Gang of Eight' story
Seattle gun tax failure? Firearm sales plummet, violence spikes after law passes
Trump's new trade czar opposed real estate development
Police search for sex offender who escaped hospital
Trump win prompts anti-immigrant Italian politician to run for prime minister
Mnuchin: US partners more comfortable with Trump on trade
An Epic Lack of Congressional Fortitude
Trump to Dreamers: 'We're going to work something out'
DC COMICS Deletes Batman Poster After Chinese Backlash…
Murderer wins 'right to be forgotten'…
As Islamic extremism grows in Latin America, some want Trump to take action – South Carolina man accused of trying to join ISIS is caught before boarding flight
Obama warns Trump on briefings: 'It doesn't matter how smart you are'
'I'm asking the questions': Sparks fly as Sen. Harris scolds Gen. Kelly during hearing
Privacy Rights versus Public Necessity
Twitter, Shadowbanning, and Conservatives
Kansas, Georgia takeaway: Special elections results mixed in predicting future
London mayor: No VIP treatment for Trump because of 'cruel' immigration ban
American tourist, 22, beaten to death on Greek island, eight suspects arrested
'Uber driver fat-shamed me'
Mathematics Is Not 'White'
Amazon cornering banana market in Seattle; giving out about 8,000 per day
Teens rescued after 3 days lost in Paris catacombs
North Korea's soldiers: A closer look the military's 'fake' capabilities – In rare meeting, White House briefs senators on North Korea threat
RAPE OUTRAGE Parents sound off at fiery Maryland school meeting
Schiff: Comey isn't telling us everything about Russia
Yale grad students' 'hunger strike' apparently involves eating when hungry
HARVARD hosts 'Anal Sex 101,' 'Oral Sex 101' and 'fatphobia' workshops…
Klobuchar on Russian hacking: 'Any influence from a foreign entity makes an election not fair'
Kidnapped Ohio woman found trapped in backyard pit
1 killed when car goes airborne, strikes ceiling of tunnel in Boston
House to vote on extending Iran sanctions
'WEEKLY' LAUNCHES PLANNED? North Korea vows frequent missile tests despite warnings from US, allies
Target lower-belly fat
Cliff-Hanging and Earthquakes
Single-Payer Socialized Health Care: What Would It Mean for Innovative and Alternative Medicine?
Boy dies of 'dry drowning' after swimming trip, family says
Shock study: Feds say social media can help with background checks
Trump blasts 'overrated' 'Hamilton', repeats apology demand for Pence
Alix Tichelman: Prostitute who gave fatal heroin shot to Google exec deported
DHS: Gang affiliation of Seattle immigrant cancels DACA status
Report: Pentagon and intelligence community want NSA director out
Cheaters getting punished
DNC's Donna Brazile: Sanctions not enough for Russian 'attacks on the United States'
Shred the Veil
New White House chief usher moves from Trump hotel
Albert Pujols hits career home run No. 600 – Marlins' Edinson Volquez tosses no-hitter
Snag drones in midair?
The Flag of My Father
‘Skinny Budget’ Outline Is the Right Stuff
McCain: I have 'concerns' about Tillerson ties to Putin
Saudis Shocked by Official Flip-Flop on Khashoggi…
Jewish summer camp hit for flying Palestinian flag in 'teachable moment'
Mini-nukes, mosquito bots primed for warfare…
Left-leaning groups to demonstrate outside Supreme Court after Trump selects a nominee
Barron Trump to attend private Episcopal school in Maryland
Hits out at poor understanding of music…
Muslim's DNC bid dogged by anti-Semitism charges
Paraphrasing Cato: The Democratic Party Must Be Destroyed
Illinois town to use marijuana sales tax to fund reparations…
Body in Florida wildlife refuge is woman last seen Sunday
Energy panel to hold Tuesday votes on Trump's Energy, Interior picks
'BANANA REPUBLIC' Illinois' budget disaster has lottery on the brink
Musket ball’s amazing journey
Eugene Palmer case: Murder fugitive hiding under alias, police say – Slain Arkansas cop honored as murder suspect pleads not guilty
GOP sets Thursday vote to oppose UN's Israel resolution
Why the European Union Is Failing
The Opposite of a Two-State Solution Is Not One State
SCARE IN THE SKY Officials: Man tried to enter cockpit on flight to Hawaii
North Korea launches another mid-range ballistic missile, officials say – COVERAGE ON THE CRISIS OVER NORTH KOREA
Donald Trump and the Flouting of the Goldwater Rule
Obama expected to reveal new sanctions against Russia
Thousands of students carry protests against Trump into second week
TOO CLOSE TO CALL Early results in Ga. House election show seesaw race
Middle East Studies Profs Gone Bad
Trump, Pence press for release of jailed pastor in meeting with Turkey's president
TINY DISTRICT, BIG FIGHT Replacing Price shows GOP split, Dem hope in Ga.
MAP OF MISERY: Defectors, Google Earth pinpoint carnage of North Korea's bloody dictatorship
Liberals Don't Care about Character
