Aristotle’s distinction between the rule of laws and the rule of men has left a long legacy. Laws, said the great sage, are considered, rational rules applying generally.
The rule of a man, by comparison, is an invitation to government by discretion and ultimately to tyranny.
“He who would have the rule of a man adds an element of the beast,” he wrote, “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.”
There is no country in which this distinction is more important than the United States in the age of Donald Trump. Article II of the Constitution of the United States concentrates almost all civil and military power in the hands of the president. He—for the constitution assumes the president is a man—appoints all federal officers, subject in some cases to the approval of the Senate. Once appointed, these officers are the president’s agents, holding office at his pleasure and acting on his instructions. The president derives his powers directly from the Constitution and is not answerable to Congress except by way of impeachment.
“He who would have the rule of a man adds an element of the beast,” he wrote, “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.”
There is no country in which this distinction is more important than the United States in the age of Donald Trump. Article II of the Constitution of the United States concentrates almost all civil and military power in the hands of the president. He—for the constitution assumes the president is a man—appoints all federal officers, subject in some cases to the approval of the Senate. Once appointed, these officers are the president’s agents, holding office at his pleasure and acting on his instructions. The president derives his powers directly from the Constitution and is not answerable to Congress except by way of impeachment.
Continue reading @ Prospect.
No comments