OK, so in the USA (and the entire British Empire) we run a mixture of written law and common law. While we say in the USA that the Constitution is the maximum law of the land, that actually does not say as much as we think it does for a two reasons.
One is the Declaration of Independence, which states that there are “certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” That is, the Declaration leaves open the possibility that there are additional rights which are not enumerated and which the government cannot make alien to us–that is what inalienable means, to make alien to us. Cases have been filed based on the Declaration and rulings of law have, indeed, been made on the Declaration. That is, the Declaration actually limits how far law can go in certain areas. For instance, many of our vaunted rights to privacy (in the home, etc.) are not in writing, but are one of those inherited unstated inalienable rights.
A second is that we are also founded on a system that includes common law. That is, we believe and acknowledge that there is a tradition of rights and interpretations and law that are received from our forefathers but are not written law. These traditions are so strong that there are whole areas of law in the USA (and the British Empire) in which there is NO written law to support the common law but only the system of precedent and received interpretations. As I pointed out–and the Wiki article I cited–the reason that both the Constitution and the written laws of the USA are broadly written is because we rely on this inherited tradition to give meaning to our laws, and not simply what is written or the whim of judges.
While I have not touched upon non-strict theories of the interpretation of law, I think that you should be beginning to see some parallels between what I have said, the Bible, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism. You see, I would argue that the system of laws that are found in the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition is a mixture of what is officially written and tradition. Or to put it another way, our system of laws parallels the entire system of Scripture, Holy Tradition, and interpretations of the Councils of the Church. But, not too surprisingly, it parallels that system in a very Anglican way, and a way that is not necessarily too far from Eastern Orthodoxy.
Much of the argument by strict constructionists actually parallels some of the more Anabaptist arguments on Scripture. That is, there is the claim that only what is written is applicable. But, like good Anabaptists, strict constructionists fail to see how much of what we do is part of inherited tradition rather than strict interpretation of written text. In fact, when there is a strict interpretation of the written texts–the textualists (see post one)–we are usually horrified at the “technicalities,” and get upset with someone being “let loose on a technicality,” that is on interpreting the law (or Scripture) strictly as written or we would get upset were the judge to rule that there is nothing in writing and that therefore there is no crime. [That is why neither Scalia nor Roberts are textualists, although, please note that there have been rare instances in USA judisprudence when the judge has ruled that there is no crime because the laws as currently written do not apply.]
The whole structure of common law parallels the structure of Holy Tradition, but not Holy Tradition as interpreted in a Roman Catholic way. If we want to know how to interpret a certain Scripture we read the Fathers and previous authoritative interpretations of the synods in order to see what the main thrust of interpretation has been. If we wish to know how to interpret the written law, we look to common law, to case law, precedent, and inherited understandings. That does not mean that the particular interpretation is obvious, but it does mean that the interpretation is given within certain boundaries.
In fact, some of the arguments by strict constructionists remind me of the arguments over the interpretation of Scripture. Why do we say that a certain judicial interpretation is incorrect? Well, because we do not agree with it, of course! Why does a Baptist say that a Methodist is mistaken? Because the two do not agree in how to interpret a Scripture or two.
So, how do we solve interpretations of law in the USA? Why in a very synodical way! That is, we gather several judges who give their opinion on the subject. That is what an appellate court is, a gathering of judges. It is thought that by bringing together a variety of judges from different backgrounds, we find a way through the issue. Unless the Supreme Court overturns it, that decision becomes a precedent for the courts in that diocese, err, I mean, in that region. Now, appellate courts turn down more arguments than they accept because not all interpretations of the law are valid. Some are so clearly outside what is written and what is inherited (common law) that there is no reason to review the lower court decision. I wish we could do that with some of the really wacky interpretations of Scripture that I have heard!
===MORE TO COME===
Leave a Reply