The Province of the Rule of Law (Finally) Determined
Abstract
Under the general assumptions of democratic theory, legislatures have positive legitimacy to make law because of the power of the people who elected them. Throughout the world, however, unelected judges also make law. What, if anything, gives such judges positive legitimacy to make law? This paper demonstrates, through two superficially simple game-theoretic examples, that judges’ positive legitimacy is based on the power of people. Courts' legitimacy has the same basis as legislatures'. Since the French revolution, the ultimate arbiter in the social fight is the strongest faction, the majority. A group of people communicates its type to society at the ballot box. Based on the ballot count, society makes concessions to the terms dictated by the majority. Under what circumstances would an individual ever be able to dictate terms to society? This paper demonstrates that the court system allows a single individual to act collectively with other similarly situated individuals spread out through time. This paper argues that this group can communicate its type to society through legal reasoning. Courts are insulated from the political process because unelected judges are supposed to be beholden to a temporally disconnected group, rather than to contemporaneous constituencies.
References
[2] Arrow, K.J.1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York, N.Y. Wiley.
[3] Augustine. 1929. Sancti Aurelii Augustini de Ciuitate Dei libri XXII ed. by Bernhard Dombart. Liepzig. Teubner.
[4] Berkowitz, R. 2003. Friedrich Nietzsche, the Code of Manu, and the Art of Legislation. Cardozo Law Review 24:1131.
[5] Bickel, A.M. 1962. The least dangerous branch; the Supreme Court at the bar of politics. Indianapolis, In: Bobbs-Merrill.
[6] Bruhl, A.A.P. 2002. Justice Unconceived: How Posterity Has Rights. Yale Journal Law & Humanities 14:393.
[7] Bull, J. 2008. Mechanism Design with Moderate Evidence Cost. Contributions in Theoretical Economics, Vol. 8: No. 1 (2008), Article 15.
[8] Burke, E. 1790. Reflections on the Revolution in France. London. J. Dodsley.
[9] Calabresi, G. 1982. A Common Law for the Age of Statutes. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.
[10] Cardozo, B.N. 1922. The Nature of the Judicial Process. New Haven, Ct. Yale University Press.
[11] Childs, M.D. 1995. An Historical Critique of the Emergence and Evolution of Ernesto Che Guevara's Foco Theory. Journal of Latin American Studies 27:593-624.
[12] Cooter, R.D. 2000. The Strategic Constitution. Princeton, N.J. Princeton University Press.
[13] Cooter, R.D. 1997. Normative Failure Theory of Law. Cornell Law Review 82:947.
[14] Cooter, R.D., and Rubinfeld, D.L. 1989. Economic Analysis of Legal Disputes. Journal of Economic Literature. 23:1067 – 97.
[15] Dahl, R.A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago, Ill. University of Chicago Press.
[16] D'Amato, A. 1990. What Obligation Does Our Generation Owe to the Next? An Approach to Global Environmental Responsibility. American Journal of International Law 84:190.
[17] Davidson, J.E. 2003. Tomorrow's Standing Today: How the Equitable Jurisdiction Clause of Article III, Section 2 Confers Standing Upon Future Generations. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 28:185.
[18] del Granado, J.J. 2010. Un libro de Derecho del siglo XVI, refundido para el siglo XXI. Mexico, D.F. Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
[19] Eisenberg, M.A. 1988. The Nature of Common Law. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.
[20] Ely, J.H. 1980. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.
[21] Epstein, R.A. 1989. Justice Across the Generations. Texas Law Review 67:1465.
[22] Farber, D.A., and Philip, P. 1991. Law and Public Choice: A Critical Introduction. Chicago, Ill. University of Chicago Press.
[23] Friedman, D.D. 2000. Law's Order: What Economics Has to Do with Law and Why It Matters. Princeton. N.J. Princeton University Press.
[24] Fuller, L. 1940. The Law in Quest of Itself. Chicago, Ill. The Foundation Press, Inc.
[25] Fuller, L. 1958. Positivism and Fidelity to Law - A Reply to Professor Hart. Harvard Law Review 71:630.
[26] Gachnochi, G., and Skurnik, N. 1992. The paradoxical effects of hostage-taking. International Social Science Journal 44:235.
[27] Gibbard, A. 1973. Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result. Econometrica 41:587.
[28] Gilmore, G. 1977. The Ages of American Law. New Haven, Ct. Yale University Press.
[29] Ginsburg, R.B. 1992. Speaking in a Judicial Voice. New York University Law Review 67:1185-1209.
[30] Habermas, J. 1973. Legitimations probleme im Spätkapitalismus. Frankfurt am Main. Suhrkamp.
[31] Habermas, J. 1981. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Frankfurt am Main. Suhrkamp.
[32] Habermas, J. 1992. Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträgezur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaates. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
[33] Halpin, D. 2001. Utopianism and Education: The Legacy of Thomas More. British Journal of Educational Studies 49-299-315.
[34] Harsanyi, J.C. 1967-1968. Games with Incomplete Information Played by ‘Bayesian’ Players. Management Science 14:159-182, 320-334, 486-502.
[35] Hart, H.L.A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford. Clarendon Press.
[36] Hart, H.M. Jr., and Sacks, A. 1994. The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law. Westbury, N.Y. The Foundation Press.
[37] Hart, H.M. Jr., and Sacks, A. 1958. Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals. Harvard Law Review 71:593.
[38] Hayek, F.A. Law. 1972. Legislation and Liberty: The Mirage of Social Justice. Chicago, Ill. University of Chicago Press.
[39] Hegel, G.W.F. 1807. System der Wissenschaft: erster Theil, Die Phänomenologie des Geistes. Bamberg und Würzburg: Bey Joseph Anton Goebhardt.
[40] Heinzerling, L. 1999. Environmental Law and the Present Future. Georgetown Law Journal 87:2025.
[41] Holmes Jr., O.W. 1881. The Common Law. Boston. Little, Brown and Co.
[42] Kelsen, H. 1934. Reine Rechtslehre: Einleitung in die rechts wissenschaftliche Problematik. Leipzig und Wien: F. Deuticke.
[43] Levi, E.H. 1949. An introduction to legal reasoning. Chicago, Ill. University of Chicago Press.
[44] Lieberman, D. 2002. The Province of Legislation Determined. New York. Cambridge University Press.
[45] Madison, J. 1810. The Federalist, on the new Constitution, No. 10. New York. Williams & Whiting.
[46] Majone, G. 1998. Europe's Democratic Deficit: The Question of Standards. European Law Journal 4:5.
[47] Marquand, D. 1979. Parliament for Europe. London. Jonathan Cape Ltd.
[48] Maggio, G.F. 1997. Inter/intra-generational Equity: Current Applications under International Law for Promoting the Sustainable Development of Natural Resources. Buffalo Environmental Law Journal 4:161.
[49] Montesquieu, C.-.L. de Secondat. 1748. De l’esprit des lois, bk. 11. Geneve: Chez Barillot, & fils.
[50] Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford. Clarendon Press.
[51] Posner, E.A. 2001. Strategies of Constitutional Scholarship. Law & Social Inquiry 26:529.
[52] Posner, E.A. 1998. Social Norms, Social Meaning, and the Economic Analysis of Law. The Journal of Legal Studies 27:765.
[53] Posner, R.A. 2003. Economic Analysis of the Law. Sixth Edition. NY. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business: Aspen Publishers.
[54] Posner, R.A. 1990. The Problems of Jurisprudence. Cambridge. Harvard University Press.
[55] Posner, R.A., and Landes, W.M. 1975. The Independent Judiciary in an Interest-Group Perspective. Journal of Law & Economics 18:875-901.
[56] Rousseau, J.J. 1762. Du contract social, ou, Principes du droit politique, bk 11. Amsterdam. Chez Marc Michel Rey.
[57] Sanchirico, C., and Triantis, G. 2008. Evidentiary Arbitrage: The Fabrication of Evidence and the Verifiability of Contract Performance. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 24: 72 – 94.
[58] Satterthwaite, M.A. 1975. Strategy-Proofness and Arrow's Conditions: Existence and Correspondence Theorems for Voting Procedures and Social Welfare Functions. Journal of Economic Theory 10:187.
[59] Schauer, F.F. 2009. Thinking like a lawyer: a new introduction to legal reasoning. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.
[60] Shapiro, M. 1998. The European Court of Justice: of Institutions and Democracy. Israel Law Review 32:448-74.
[61] Shughart, W.F. II, Tollison, R.D. 1998. Interest Groups and Courts. George Mason Law Review 6:953.
[62] Somin, I. 2004. Political Ignorance and the Counter majoritarian Difficulty: A New Perspective on the Central Obsession of Constitutional Theory. Iowa Law Review 89:1287.
[63] Spence, M. 1973. Job Market Signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 87:355.
[64] Stearns, M.L. 1995. Standing Back from the Forest: Justiciability and Social Choice. California Law Review 83:1309.
[65] Sunstein, C. 1993. On Analogical Reasoning. Harvard Law Review 106: 517.
[66] Sunstein, C. 1995a. Incompletely Theorized Agreements. Harvard Law Review 108:1733.
[67] Sunstein, C. 1995b. Problems with Rules. California Law Review 83:953.
[68] Sunstein, C. 1996a. Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict. New York, N.Y. Oxford University Press.
[69] Sunstein, C. 1996b. The Supreme Court, 1995 Term - Foreword: Leaving Things Undecided. Harvard Law Review 110:4.
[70] Sunstein, C. 2001. One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.
[71] Sunstein, C. 2004. Minimalism at War. Supreme Court Review 2004:47.
[72] Sunstein, C. 2006. Burkean Minimalism. Michigan Law Review 105:353.
[73] Sunstein, C. 2007. Second-Order Perfectionism. Fordham Law Review 75:2867.
[74] Tomlinson, E.A. 1997. Judicial Lawmaking in a Code Jurisdiction: A French Saga on Certainty of Price in Contract Law. Louisianna Law Review 58:101.
[75] Tullock, G. 1980. Trials on Trial. New York. Columbia University Press.
[76] Vermeule, A. 2011. The System of the Constitution. New York, N.Y. Oxford University Press.
[77] Vermeule, A., and Lanni, A. 2012. Constitutional Design in the Ancient World. Stanford Law Review 64:907.
[78] Weinreb, L.L. 2005. Legal Reason: The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument. New York, N.Y. Cambridge University Press.
[79] Wright, R.G. 1990. The Interests of Posterity in the Constitutional Scheme. University of Cincinnati Law Review 59:113.
The Copyright Transfer Form to ASERS Publishing (The Publisher)
This form refers to the manuscript, which an author(s) was accepted for publication and was signed by all the authors.
The undersigned Author(s) of the above-mentioned Paper here transfer any and all copyright-rights in and to The Paper to The Publisher. The Author(s) warrants that The Paper is based on their original work and that the undersigned has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment. It is the author's responsibility to obtain written permission to quote material that has been previously published in any form. The Publisher recognizes the retained rights noted below and grants to the above authors and employers for whom the work performed royalty-free permission to reuse their materials below. Authors may reuse all or portions of the above Paper in other works, excepting the publication of the paper in the same form. Authors may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the above Paper for the Author's personal use or for internal company use, provided that the source and The Publisher copyright notice are mentioned, that the copies are not used in any way that implies The Publisher endorsement of a product or service of an employer, and that the copies are not offered for sale as such. Authors are permitted to grant third party requests for reprinting, republishing or other types of reuse. The Authors may make limited distribution of all or portions of the above Paper prior to publication if they inform The Publisher of the nature and extent of such limited distribution prior there to. Authors retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in The Paper. This agreement becomes null and void if and only if the above paper is not accepted and published by The Publisher, or is with drawn by the author(s) before acceptance by the Publisher.