Is the Rule of Regulation Sacred?

It isn’t as a result of preserving the rule of legislation is a French drawback that it has no relevance for the USA. Fairly the opposite. The present minister of the Inside, the highest cop in France, lately declared (see Nicolas Bastuk and Samuel Dufay, “L’État de droit est-il sacré?” or “Is the Rule of Regulation Sacred?” in Le Level, October 10, 2024):

The rule of legislation is neither untouchable nor sacred. [Its] supply is the sovereign individuals.

L’État de droit, ça n’est pas intangible ni sacré. [Sa] supply, c’est le peuple souverain.

The classical-liberal definition of the rule of legislation could be borrowed from Friedrich Hayek. In his Regulation, Laws, and Liberty, he recognized it with

guidelines regulating the conduct of individuals in direction of others, relevant to an unknown variety of future situations and containing prohibitions delimiting the boundary of the protected area of every particular person.

The rule of legislation is a “authorities of legal guidelines” as a substitute of a “authorities by males,” as the usual system says. The so-called “sovereign individuals” itself is just a gaggle of males. Hayek believed that, in the long term, versus political mobs, these common guidelines or legal guidelines essentially come from the opinion of “the individuals”—which introduces some indeterminacy within the distinction between the rule of legislation and in style sovereignty. However like all classical liberals, Hayek was nonetheless adamant that the individuals should not be thought-about sovereign, that’s, it could not maintain supreme or limitless energy.

The concept the rule of legislation is incompatible with the sovereignty of the individuals was forcefully expressed by Émile Faguet, a French literary critic and historian of political concepts, in his 1903 e book Le Libéralisme (Liberalism):

[My translation:] If the individuals is sovereign  by proper, which is strictly what the authors of the Declarations [the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, and the one of 1793], the individuals has the best, being sovereign, to abolish all particular person rights. Such is the battle. Placing in the identical declaration the best of the individuals and the rights of man, sovereignty of the individuals and liberty for instance, on the similar degree, is like placing water and hearth and ask them to please work out their variations. …

The authors of the Declarations, even of the much less faulty first one, had been each democrats and liberals; they believed each in particular person liberty and the sovereignty of the individuals. This led them to place of their work a basic antinomy.

[Original French:] Si le droit du peuple, c’est la souveraineté, ce que précisément ont dit les rédacteurs des Déclarations, le peuple a le droit, en sa souveraineté, de supprimer tous les droits de l’individu. Et voilà le conflit. Mettre dans une même déclaration le droit du peuple et les droits de l’homme, la souveraineté du peuple et la liberté par exemple, à égal titre, c’est y mettre l’eau et le feu et les prier ensuite de vouloir bien s’arranger ensemble. […]

Les auteurs des Déclarations, même de la première, quoique moins, étaient à la fois démocrates et libéraux, et ils croyaient à la fois à la liberté individuelle et à la souveraineté du peuple. Ils devaient mettre dans leur œuvre une antinomie fondamentale.

Heirs of the Enlightenment just like the French constitutional writers, the American founders dedicated the identical error, even when they had been extra suspicious of in style sovereignty; their descendants turned much less suspicious as time handed. The issue stays very related in as we speak’s America.

******************************