The United States: Government of ‘Laws or Men?’
The term good government has become an oxymoron in contemporary polity. But the origin of American good government aspirational objective pursuit of impartial righteousness, and the delegation of responsibility. The judicial branch harbors an obligation to till each jurisdiction with reverence; thus fortifying the assembly of a decentralized, yet modularly dependent system of justice. John Adams declared this form of good government, to be “an empire of laws,” (Archives). Thus, basing statutory law and common law on inherent natural law and judicial precedent; government—specifically the judiciary—must exercise conscious restraint against any inherent personal biases. This requires a focus to be placed on the law; the issue(s) at hand; and any relevant previous rulings that have occurred within that jurisdiction.
For over two centuries, judges and justices have preserved the traditional role of American jurisprudence; excluding their personal interests from their decision-making. Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., at his confirmation hearing, acknowledged first, that “[j]udges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath,” (USCourts). Secondly, that “judges have to have modesty to be open in the decisional process to the considered views of their colleagues on the bench,” (USCourts). Thus, judges carry a burden of judicial righteousness, and virtuous impartiality; a steward of justice, in resolving matters of conflict and legal issues.
John Adams emphatically warned of the dangers of centralized power, noting that the Articles of Confederation was too weak to offer the states any form of viable national security. Yet Adams’ strong government did not advocate for a monarchy, clarifying that, “a people cannot be long free, nor ever happy, whose government is in one Assembly,” (Archives). Thus, the Founders dispersed total authority across three branches of government, endowing the judiciary with the authority to distribute justice and ensure that judicial authority would not be distorted.
America was founded on the prospect to attain happiness from the path of moral virtue; whilst honor, could not be self-imposed—but was a secondary title appointed by third-party witnesses, contingent on ethos. During the Revolutionary War, the American dream required its pursuers to construct government built from a foundation of virtuous ambition and personal faith; Founding Father John Adams wrote, “[a]ll sober enquiries after truth, ancient and modern, Pagan and Christian, have declared that the happiness of man, as well as his dignity consists in virtue,” (Archives). Adams studied political theory from the far-east to the middle-east to Western civilization, philosophies and religions have amassed consensus that virtue is a moral currency. Thus, the Framers noted that wealth is fostered in a stoic resilience and zealous compassion in the face of afflictive contention.
John Adams noted “Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates, Mahomet, not to mention authorities really sacred, have agreed in this;” hierarchy of natural law, (Archives). Adams specified that, “[h]onor is truly sacred, but holds a lower rank in the scale of moral excellence than virtue,” (Archives). Honor, argued Adams, is a component, and consequently has not equal pretensions to support a frame of government productive of human happiness,” (Archives). An ineffective government produces misery; whereas an effective government cultivates happiness thereby offering a continuous path to prosperity, liberty, and encourages a personal relationship with God.
Discretion
Similarly, authors Neubauer & Fradella present a relevant definition the term Discretion as “the lawful ability of an agent of government to exercise choice in making a decision,” (Neubauer & Fradella, 5–5). Here, discretion functions as an umbrella term, with “three major subcomponents: legal judgments, policy priorities, and personal philosophies,” (Neubauer & Fradella, 5–5). Therefore, judgment, although impartial, is inherently subjective and suspectable to subconcious personal philosphies; therefore, “[j]udges and prosecutors have varying views of what offenses are serious and deserving of a high priority,” (Neubauer & Fradella, 5–5a). Any worldviews, religions, and philosophies produce different legal approaches under the same circumstances. Specific “[d]ifferences among judges in the same courthouse are readily apparent. Some differences center on the purpose of the criminal law,” (Neubauer & Fradella, 5–5a).
Justices and judges are to invest themselves with the same level of passion to act righteously in their adjudications; recusing themselves in conflicts of interest, and voiding their rulings of any personal or political agendas. Chief Justice Roberts expounded a reminder for judicial posterity; “Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes. I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment,” (USCourts). Here, Chief Justice Roberts depicts the clear image of the American judiciary, in that zeal needn’t include bias to fulfill the requirements of the Court. Instead, commitment to the law ought to supplant any other comparable component. Judges and members of the judiciary take an oath or affirmation to uphold the law, independently of their own interests.
Overall, the majority of “justice actors do not exercise their discretion in a corrupt manner,” Yet, unfavorably, “their discretionary decision making can allow certain factors to influence case processing and outcomes that are not supposed to be a part of the criminal justice process;” leading to immense controversy over the impartiality and efficacy of the U.S. justice system. Moreover, a favorable public opinion is vital in any government. As John Adams wrote, “[t]he foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people,” (Archives). Therefore, it is essential that government invest in the best interests of its citizenry; thereby preserving its collective morale; thereby reimmunizing of the contemporary body politic against the attempted imposition of the tyrannic laws of men.
Virtue
Virtue is a lot like salt; in that its potency is indicative of its existence. As it is written in the New Testament, “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot,” (Matthew 5:13; NIV). But virtue is not ubiquitously found in government. Therefore Scripture decrees, “[m]ake sure that the light you think you have is not actually darkness,” (Luke 11:35; NLT). Thus, judges ought to symbolize a beacon of justice on the courts; for "[i]f your spirit burns with light, fully illuminated with no trace of darkness, you will be a shining lamp, reflecting rays of truth by the way you live,” (Luke 11:36; TPT).
Converse to an originalist interpretation, there exists contemporary pushback to redirect the judicial narrative toward a “government of men.” The lack of judicial restraint and objective moral guidance has ushered a wave of judicial activists. While this additional premise inverts the intentions of our Framers; isolated—its existence is unstructured and unsustainable. Originalists view the encroachment of the governance of men as inappropriate; a despotic violation of our guaranteed liberties against tyrannic infiltration. But living constitutionalists believe that through reinterpretation the Constitution can be revamped and improved—without the traditional means of proposing a constitutional amendment.
Instead, a government of men decides that the Founding Fathers' original intentions are irrelevant, and the words can be reapplied in the context of contemporary culture. Constitutional reinterpretation is not only inappropriate, but it is irresponsible. Negating America’s predetermined Constitutional jurisdiction rejects the Philadelphia Convention’s lengthy debates and lasting compromise that has remained in effect for nearly two and a half centuries.
Conclusion
Conclusively, the United States government and its courts are reflective of a ‘government of laws’ insofar that the culmination of God’s natural law, the U.S. Constitution, common law, and statutory law all observably possess identical qualities when overlayed in comparison. Secondly, the pursuit of righteous virtue has remained a central pillar in American politics; rather than the individual pursuit of an elusive glory as noted by Machiavelli and other Mediæval thinkers. But America is not a monarchy—it is a Constitutional Republic; thus, the impersonal and unattainable glory has been replaced with virtue, and an adherence to laws and legal precedent, whilst simultaneously exercising judicial restraint from unjust impositions. Favorably, the majority of U.S. judges and justices continue to uphold their obligations and sworn duties to the nation; therefore setting judicial precedent for posterity of American jurisprudence. Thus, the courts have remained consistent with the Framers' original intentions; producing a reliable system contingent on the preservation of its reverence, thereby invoking its purpose: the timely administration of adjudicative retribution and impartial justice.
Bibliography
Archives. (Accessed on Wednesday, January 29th, 2025). III. Thoughts on Government, April 1776. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-04-02-0026-0004
Neubauer, D.; Fradella, H. (2017, 2019). America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System. Cengage Publishing.
NLT. Luke 11:35
NIV. Matthew 5:13
TPT. Luke 11:36
USCourts. (Accessed on Wednesday, January 29th,2025). Chief Justice Roberts Statement - Nomination Process. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks/nomination-process/chief-justice-roberts-statement-nomination-process.