Here, the Law Is King

We promise to give you analysis that starts with what the law is — not 'No Kings' hysteria.

(zimmytws/Getty Images) Dear Friend of NR, Thomas Paine, in his 1776 revolutionary pamphlet Common Sense, wrote that "as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king." John Adams, also writing in 1776, put the same sentiment in more conservative terms familiar to us today: "The true Idea of a Republic, is 'An Empire of Laws and not of Men.'" By the time of Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall considered this American conventional wisdom: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men." Here at National Review, we still believe that. If you believe that, too, then, please, support our work as part of our ongoing webathon. SUPPORT OUR WORK Law is not the source of our rights, which come from our Creator. It is the means of government. It is far from infallible. But the American project of limited government, popular self-rule, separated powers, deliberation as a bulwark of tradition, and ordered liberty for individuals, families, churches, and communities depends upon the primacy and durability of written law. We have rules for a reason. It matters who makes them, and it matters that they are followed and enforced. We the People elect the lawmakers. They write the laws. They are bound by the written Constitution. And when the executive asserts broad powers that judges dislike, both are bound by the written law and the written Constitution. That's true whether the president is a senile liberal or a right-wing populist. We promise to give you analysis that starts with what the law is — not "No Kings" hysteria. Our editorials have insisted upon the importance of written law, the dangers of legal creativity, and the need to constrain arbitrary discretionary powers. That's why we've opposed racial gerrymandering, criticized the flawed Jim Comey indictment and the abuses of lawfare, insisted upon enforcement of the TikTok ban, called out the attorney general and the government of Colorado for getting the First Amendment wrong, called for ending the FCC's power over the airwaves, and insisted that Congress controls the tariff power and must be consulted before making war on Venezuela. That's just in the past two months. Our legal writers give you insights spanning the waterfront of controversies involving the courts, the criminal law, and the Constitution. I've written recently on Pennsylvania Supreme Court elections, collusive settlements, bad analogies in Supreme Court arguments, and the role of courts in election law, and I sat down for a two-part interview with Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The invaluable Andy McCarthy has covered developments in the Letitia James case and the Jim Comey case, the legal challenges to National Guard deployments, and the "Arctic Frost" scandal — just in the past week. Ed Whelan has been keeping you updated on appellate nominations, climate change litigation, and transgender-inmate lawsuits, while our Bench Memos section hosts an all-star roster of outside contributors on matters legal and judicial. Law isn't just for the lawyers, either; you can read Charlie Cooke, for example, making the case that the Fed is unconstitutional. Of course, our laws are not always sensible — far from it. Charles Dickens's Mr. Bumble in Oliver Twist, when told that "the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction," replies, "If the law supposes that, the law is a ass — a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience." We have always exposed the absurdity and overzealousness of too much law, and always will. But there's a difference between bad laws that need changing and bad legal arguments. Reading National Review will help you tell the difference. So, help us meet our goal this webathon so we can keep providing that level of coverage. We promise, it's a lot cheaper than billing by the hour. SUPPORT OUR WORK Thank you for your support.   Sincerely,   Dan McLaughlin Senior Writer National Review No longer wish to receive NRPLUS notifications? Adjust your preferences.  NATIONAL REVIEW 19 West 44th Street, Ste. 1701 New York, NY, 10036