No Jeff Sessions, All Laws Should Not Be Enforced

Some time ago, Attorney General Jeff Sessions seemed to communicate the view that all laws should be enforced because it is moral, as well as biblical to do so. Sessions is wrong. The laws of the state have historically been used to oppress and terrorize peoples. We should not respect and enforce a law based merely on the fact that it is a law.

According to Sessions: “I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes. “Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent, fair application of law is in itself a good and moral thing and that protects the weak, it protects the lawful.” Sarah Huckabee Sanders later defended Sessions, remarking “it is very biblical to enforce the law.”

Without exploring the biblical claim too much in depth, there are plenty of reasons to doubt that Sessions’ or Sanders’ biblical interpretations are correct. Romans 13 has myriad explanations. It may very well be the most hotly debated texts in the Bible. Here is one example that suggests something entirely different. Perhaps the first reason to question Sessions’ view of Romans 13 is that its author, the Apostle Paul was himself imprisoned on multiple occasions.

Moral to Enforce the Law?

When we look back at the many things which have been lawful at one point or another, it becomes nearly impossible to justify the claim that it is always moral to enforce the law. Slavery, genocide, internment camps, segregation, and prohibition of interracial marriage are just a few of the things such a perspective would support. As late as 1981, there were forced sterilizations in Oregon . That is not to say many modern laws are good and just. A great many of them are not. It is hard to justify locking people in a cell for possessing a drug, as just one example, if we do not already assume the law to be moral because it is the law.

Lessons learned from history suggest a nearly opposite claim; the enforcement of laws and the blind obedience to authority leads to atrocities and chaos. “I was only following orders” has come to be known as the Nuremberg Defense, since Nazis attempted to justify their actions during the Nuremberg Trials by pointing out they were merely following the law and doing as they were told. It was these kinds of internal justifications that led to the Holocaust, as well as many other horrors. Other examples include the My Lai Massacre, the starvation of the Kulaks in the Soviet Union, the Trail of Tears, and any time a bad law is enforced because someone thinks all laws ought to be enforced.

Is it Even Possible to Enforce the Law?

In his book 3 Felonies A Day, Harvey Silverglate discusses how the average person in the U.S. could be committing multiple felonies every day. Few people realize how many laws there actually are, as well as how vague and open to interpretation many are.

Law enforcement has limited time and resources. All laws and statutes simply cannot be fully enforced at all times. Every decision to enforce a law implies the decision to neglect, or enforce less vigorously, some other law. Appealing to “it’s the law” as justification for its enforcement is merely an attempt to conceal whatever true motivations a person has.

See Through the Illusion

There is a general mysticism surrounding the laws of the state. Laws are treated as akin to God’s will, or at least as the “public will.” But laws are merely the result of competing private interests who succeed in bending the political apparatus in their favor. There is nothing objective about them, nor are they inherently good. In Law, Order and Power, the authors argue “every detailed study of the emergence of legal norms has consistently shown the immense importance of interest-group activity, not the public interest, as the critical variable in determining the content of legislation.” Judge Neely in Why Courts Don’t Work observed that positive law crimes “have become crimes exclusively because some group lost a political battle.”

Some may reply that since we have consented to some social contract, law enforcement is really just giving us what we already agreed to. This notion is ridiculous on its face. If followed through to its logical conclusion, government murder would instead be called “suicide.” For a more thorough debunking of Social Contract Theory, check out this series.

Given the track record of laws, it is generally a terrible idea to use them as your moral code. We have a better chance at peace and avoiding the worst aspects of humanity if instead, we maintain a healthy skepticism of the justness of law and the morality of its enforcement.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Principled Libertarian on Patreon!