Lesson 1.3 · Unit 1 · CA HSS 10.1.2
The idea that the ruler is also bound
The rule of law is not the same as having laws. Every tyranny has laws. The rule of law is the much stronger claim that the person issuing the law is subject to it too, and that claim had to be built over centuries against determined resistance.
- Rule of law against rule of men is the core distinction. Under the first, decisions follow known rules; under the second, they follow whoever is in charge.
- Four practical requirements: the law must be public, it must be general rather than aimed at individuals, it must be applied by someone other than the person who made it, and it must bind the ruler.
- Aristotle's argument is that law is reason without passion, so rule by law is preferable to rule by any individual however wise.
- Roman law contributed the technical apparatus: written codes, professional jurists, procedure, and the idea that a case is decided by applying a rule rather than by the magistrate's preference.
- Magna Carta, 1215, is the landmark document, because a king conceded in writing that he was bound by law and that lawful judgment must precede punishment.
- Due process descends from clause 39, which requires lawful judgment of peers or the law of the land before a free man may be imprisoned or dispossessed.
- Enforcement is the recurring weakness. Magna Carta was annulled within months and reissued repeatedly, which shows that a written limit needs a standing mechanism.
Where students lose marks: defining the rule of law as "everyone must obey the law". That is compatible with the worst tyranny. The distinguishing feature is that the lawmaker is also bound, and that the law is applied by someone other than the person who wrote it.
The sources. Aristotle, Politics, Book III, in Benjamin Jowett's 1885 translation, and Magna Carta, 1215, clauses 39 and 40, in the standard English translation of the Latin. Both public domain.
He who bids the law rule may be deemed to bid God and Reason alone rule, but he who bids man rule adds an element of the beast; for desire is a wild beast, and passion perverts the minds of rulers, even when they are the best of men. The law is reason unaffected by desire.
39. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
40. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
Step one: read Aristotle's argument as a comparison of failure modes. He is not claiming law is perfect. He is claiming that the characteristic failure of rule by law is rigidity, while the characteristic failure of rule by a person is passion, and that the second is worse because it is unpredictable.
Step two: note the concession that strengthens it. "Even when they are the best of men." Aristotle grants that the ruler may be excellent and argues the case anyway, which means the argument does not depend on rulers being bad. A system that is safe only when good people hold office is not a system.
Step three: turn to clause 39 and count what it actually requires. Three things. That action against a free man needs lawful judgment. That the judgment be by his equals or by the law of the land. And, in the phrase "nor will we proceed", that the king himself is the party being restrained.
Step four: identify why the first person matters so much. "We" is the king. A limitation the king writes about himself, in his own voice, in a document he seals, is a written admission that royal power has boundaries. That admission, not any particular clause, is why the document matters.
Step five: read clause 40 for what it assumes. "To no one will we sell... right or justice" presupposes that selling justice was happening and was profitable. The clause is evidence about the abuse it forbids, which is generally true of legal documents: a prohibition is a description of the practice.
Step six: state the limits honestly. "Free man" excluded the unfree majority of the population in 1215. The document was extracted by armed barons protecting their own interests, not granted from principle. It was annulled by the Pope within months and reissued in altered forms repeatedly.
Step seven: explain why it still matters despite all that. Because the text outlived the circumstances. Later generations read "no free man" as "no person" and clause 39 as due process, and cited a document a king had sealed. A written limit can be narrow when granted and broad when invoked, which is exactly what happened with the Fourteenth Amendment and is the general lesson.
Step eight: connect to the enforcement problem. Magna Carta's clause 61 set up twenty-five barons to enforce it by seizing royal property. That mechanism collapsed immediately and was dropped from later reissues. The standard survived; the enforcement did not, which is the same shortfall identified in lesson 1.1.
Questions 1 to 5 are recall. Questions 6 to 10 ask for reasoning.
- Distinguish rule of law from rule of men.
Show the full solution
Under rule of law, decisions follow known rules; under rule of men, they follow whoever is in charge
- Name the four practical requirements of the rule of law.
Show the full solution
Public, general, applied by someone other than the lawmaker, and binding on the ruler
- State Aristotle's argument in one sentence.
Show the full solution
Law is reason unaffected by desire, so it is safer than rule by any individual
- What does clause 39 of Magna Carta require?
Show the full solution
Lawful judgment of equals or by the law of the land before a free man is seized, imprisoned or dispossessed
- What modern principle descends from clause 39?
Show the full solution
Due process of law
- Why is "everyone must obey the law" an inadequate definition of the rule of law?
Show the full solution
Because it is perfectly compatible with tyranny. A dictatorship can have laws, enforce them strictly, and require universal obedience while the ruler remains free to change them at will and is never subject to them. What distinguishes the rule of law is that the lawmaker is bound too, that the rules are public and general rather than aimed at named individuals, and that they are applied by someone other than the person who wrote them. Tyrannies satisfy it; the distinguishing feature is that the lawmaker is bound
- Why does Aristotle's concession about "the best of men" strengthen his argument?
Show the full solution
Because it removes the easiest objection. If the case against personal rule depended on rulers being wicked, a defender could reply that a virtuous ruler solves the problem. Aristotle grants excellence and argues that passion perverts even the best minds, so the danger is structural rather than moral. The underlying principle is that a system which is safe only when good people hold office is not a system at all. It makes the argument structural rather than dependent on bad rulers
- Why is the word "we" in clause 39 the most important word in it?
Show the full solution
Because "we" is the king, so the restraint is written in the voice of the person being restrained, in a document he sealed. That is a written admission by a monarch that royal power has limits, which is the precedent that matters far more than the specific protections listed. Later documents could point to a king conceding the principle in his own name rather than having to establish it from scratch. The king restrains himself in his own voice, conceding that royal power has limits
- What does clause 40 reveal about practice in 1215?
Show the full solution
That justice was being sold, denied and delayed, profitably enough to require a clause forbidding it. A prohibition is evidence of the practice it prohibits, which is a generally useful way to read legal documents: the list of things a charter forbids is a description of what was happening. Reading the clause as a statement of ideals misses that it is also a record of specific abuses the barons had experienced. It is evidence that selling and delaying justice was routine
- Magna Carta was extracted by armed barons and annulled within months. Why does it still
matter?
Show the full solution
Because the text outlived the circumstances that produced it. Later generations read "no free man" as "no person" and clause 39 as due process, and could cite a document an English king had sealed rather than argue the principle from nothing. A written limit can be narrow when granted and broad when invoked, which is the same pattern as the Fourteenth Amendment, ignored for decades and then used to dismantle segregation. The document's later use is a separate fact from its origin. A narrow text was later invoked broadly, as with the Fourteenth Amendment