A nation of law abiders starts at the top
If presidents won’t, why should we?
Some people are now encouraging President Obama to basically ignore the Supreme Court where its rulings might impede the implementation of Obamacare. A recent Rasmussen poll showed that 26% of likely voters say the president should be able to disregard federal court rulings “if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country.”
Faced with a Supreme Court order to turn over the White House tapes, President Nixon complied and eventually resigned. But if Obama were to violate a high court decision, he wouldn’t be the first president to do so. President Andrew Jackson, after all, ignored the justices’ decision in favor of the Cherokee Nation and sent the Cherokees on the Trail of Tears.
The only remedy for presidential lawlessness, short of a coup or a civil war, is impeachment, and only two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, have ever been impeached. Neither was removed from office.
Of course, presidential lawlessness is a special case. Because the president controls not only the nation’s law enforcement apparatus but also its military, it’s pretty hard to call him to account. But what about the rest of us? If presidents can violate the law, why can’t we?
It would be a bad thing for the country if Americans started to ask that question. There are different reasons for choosing to obey or disobey the law. One reason is fear of consequences. The problem with consequences is that often, there aren’t many. Yes, the government’s law-enforcement powers are formidable, and if authorities decide to target you, they stand a good chance of convicting you.
Most of the time, authorities are busy elsewhere. If people follow the law only when they fear the consequences of getting caught, it follows that they will cheerfully break the law when they aren’t afraid of suffering any consequences.
A society based purely on consequences is likely to be an ugly one. Laws will be broken, while the government will do its best to crack down on people because consequences are the only motivator. The end result is likely to be anarchy, tyranny or an ugly combination of both.
It’s better if people follow the law because they want to. But the reasons have to go beyond avoiding punishment. First, they must generally approve of the law as fair. Second, they have to feel reasonably confident that most others will obey the law, too. Finally, they have to feel as if the people in charge also respect the law.
It’s much better to live in a society in which the laws are just, and in which people follow them as much out of moral obligation as fear of consequences. But such a society requires a degree of selfdiscipline on the part of its members, and especially of its leaders. Does our political class possess these traits? If not, how long can we expect the rest of society to?