R: Cut Down the Law to Get at the Devil

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

This quote is the inspiration for this week’s debate. It is in vogue to rage against the institutions that govern us. Laws, procedures, and rules generally provide us with order and the liberty we value. Very rarely do we hear arguments against one’s right to legal counsel, the institution of the Supreme Court, or our systems of checks and balances. However, many times, these very systems can provide us with or exacerbate the worst cancers in our society. Criminals are found not guilty, the court perpetuates immorality, and our government is rendered impotent against the challenges against which it is built to rise. Packing the court, abolishing the filibuster, and the passing of policies that have the effect of suppressing votes may have temporary, potent positive effects for the parties enacting the policy, but possible disastrous consequences down the line. Most conservatives would bristle at the idea of court-packing, and abolishing the filibuster now, but what if the tables were turned? Would we hold to these same convictions if it advantaged us not to? Should we adopt this as a principle?

If one is inclined to say yes, one must examine the example of slavery, and the secession of the south. There is a large consensus that the southern states had a right to secede from the Union. Yet, the issue of slavery was so important that the north took up arms to stop the south. They cut down the law to get after the devil. When faced with the prospect of legal intervention or military intervention, they chose the latter. It is easy to look back on the war and see that it obviously was the correct choice. What we forget is that the devil almost won. If it had, what recourse would be left?

How then are we to think about this issue? Is there a certain gravity threshold one must pass to justify cutting down laws? Or conversely, should we be more wary of destroying institutions when the stakes are higher? After all, high stakes mean high consequences and low stakes mean low consequences. Still further, does the destruction of one institution weaken confidence in all institutions?