Montesquieu in action

"Democratic and aristocratic states are not in their own nature free. Political liberty is to be found only in moderate governments; and even in these it is not always found. It is there only when there is no abuse of power. But constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go. Is it not strange, though true, to say that virtue itself has need of limits?

To prevent this abuse, it is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power. A government may be so constituted, as no man shall be compelled to do things to which the law does not oblige him, nor forced to abstain from things which the law permits."

Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, 1952, Book XI, Of the Laws Which Establish Political Liberty, with Regard to the Constitution

You think ideas don't make the world go round? Keep watching this Karl Rove testimony drama. It's Montesquieu and separation of powers in action.

Here's Karl Rove addressing the subpoena when it was issued.



Here's Debbie Wasserman Shultz threatening action from Congress.



And here's Catherine Crier, talking as a surrogate for John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, about arresting Karl Rove and trying him before Congress if he refuses to testify to the House.



But here's the funny part. Karl's right. This is resolved either by the consent of both parties, or it goes to the court.

Catherine Crier is right that Congress is a check on executive power. But Karl Rove is also right that the executive branch is a check on Congress, as well. Meaning, they both serve as checks on each others' power. Tie goes to the court, likely the Supreme Court, who will probably render a final decision on this question.

It's so funny watching so many people talk about the rule of law with so much certainty but with so little understanding of the rule of law, on this question, isn't it? Makes you wonder about the folks making such calls. If you haven't already had much reason to wonder, already.

The rule of law, like any idea, is subject to the whims and vagaries of politics and the obsession with power that it often entails. The Nuremberg Laws, in Germany, that compelled Jews to turn themselves into the state to be murdered, and Fugitive Slave Laws, in the United States, which required that Americans betray their consciences and turn in runaway slaves, are excellent examples of the rule of law being used to serve the purposes of those obsessed with power at the expense of conscience and morality. It has been used for such purposes since the beginning of humanity. That is why Montesquieu developed the idea of separation of powers, to check this tendency (not to eliminate it, which is impossible). In fact, it has repeatedly been used and abused in exactly this way during this political period, by both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans.

But the ideas of people like the Baron de Montesquieu, embodied in the U.S. Constitution, ultimately govern this question.

And thank goodness for that. Without such ideas, we would all be subject to the vagaries of power that despotic governments that Montesquieu was critiquing were wont to engage in. We are subject to those vagaries, now, in liberal societies, as well.

But it is our liberal values and the ideas they give birth to, not the rule of law, that ultimately correct for such vagaries.

If you doubt that, keep watching. There's still a lot of life to be lived.