11, 2002, Hu Ping
When it comes to the rule of law, two famous sayings are: one is “An illegal law is not law,” and the other is “An evil law is still a law.” These two statements seem contradictory. So, how should we understand these two sentences?
We know that in Latin vocabulary, “law” and “right” share the same origin. The Latin word ‘Jus’ has two basic meanings: one is law, the other is power. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make laws that establish the state religion or prohibit religious freedom, deprive people of freedom of speech or publication, and deprive people of the right to peaceful assembly and petition the government for justice.” “If the government enacts such a law, then the law itself is illegal, and therefore it is not law. This is what is meant by “an illegal law is not a law” (Mr. Ding Lin once wrote a brilliant article on this topic). Hayek pointed out that the rule of law means imposing restrictions on legislation; In other words, some laws are not permitted to be established.
An illegal law is not a law; it may seem like a repeated phrase, but if we remember the common origin of law and rights, we can see that what is called illegal law is law that negates law, meaning law that negates rights. “An illegal law is not law” means that a law that denies rights is not law.
There is also a saying: “Evil laws are still laws.” This means that evil and bad dharmas are also dharmas, and therefore should be followed. The reasoning is simple: people may have different views on various laws. If we only follow laws we consider good and disregard those we consider unlawful, law loses its universality and coerciveness, law ceases to be law, law collapses, and becomes invalid.
So, is the phrase “evil law still law” contradictory to the earlier statement “illegal law is not law”? Not contradictory. A law that violates our beliefs or viewpoints is still law, but a law that deprives us of the right to express our beliefs or views is not law. I should obey the law I disagree with, but the law must recognize and protect my right to express dissent. No matter how bad the law is, it cannot be so bad as to deprive the right to express dissent; otherwise, it would not just be a bad law, but an illegal law. Why are unjust laws tolerable? Because we also enjoy freedom of speech, we can change and amend bad laws by openly expressing dissent. But if our right to express dissent is stripped away, we lose the last legitimate channel to change unreasonable laws, so we must not accept this.
Netizen Henry Guo commented: “Why is this unjust law tolerable?” Because we also enjoy freedom of speech, we can change and amend bad laws by openly expressing dissent. But if our right to express dissent is stripped away, we lose the last legitimate channel to change unreasonable laws, so we must not accept this. ”
Reprinted from Hu Ping’s Facebook