A ”Principal of Law” or ”Foundation of Law” is a key concept so essential and important to the proper function of Law, that any absence or corruption would necessarily render an individual law or system of law invalid and illegitimate.
The first (and self evident) Principal of Law is that “all true and proper Law is Moral.” By its very nature, the purpose of law in society is to effectively “codify” the morality of a given society – what a society deems as morally acceptable and what a society deems is morally unacceptable. Consequently, one society may have radically different systems of law compared to another given different moral standards.
Given the very nature and purpose of law in society is to reflect the moral standards and ethics of the people, any proposed rule deemed to be immoral or “morally repugnant” cannot as a matter of fact in law – be law. That is not to say that certain law makers in various societies have not tried to pass covertly or even overtly “morally repugnant: laws. This Principal of Law simply means that such an act in itself is both a betrayal of the moral standards of the people of that society and an absurdity at law.
Because “morally repugnant” laws by definition are both a fundamental betrayal of the laws of a society and the meaning of law itself, it has been reasonably argued over the centuries that such laws cannot possibly have force or effect, regardless of whether such laws have been struck down by the courts or not. This is an underlying principal of common law for more than three hundred years.
The second Principal of Law is that “all true and proper Law must present a remedy whenever there is a penalty.” This Principal of Law could in theory be considered a variation on the first principal (all law as moral), given the absence of an remedy against some form of penalty is the height of immorality and cruelty – hence such a rule cannot possibly be law.
However, this second principal is listed on its own merit, given the necessity of properly structured law to make clear the relevant remedy connected to any penalty. The principal therefore eliminates the grounds for any absurd, torturous or dishonest arguments that may claim remedy to a particular rule can be found “by imputation” or “by creative argument” in some other act or law.
Any claimed law that requires effectively a “treasure hunt” to find some kind of remedy, by this principal cannot be considered valid law under any circumstance.
The third Principal of Law is that “all true and proper Law must be reasonable and possible to follow.” This Principal of Law could also in theory be considered a variation on the first principal (all law as moral), given an unreasonable or impossible rule is itself a perfect example of immorality and cruelty – hence such a rule cannot possibly be law.
However, this third principal is listed on its own merit, given the necessity of properly structured law to be both reasonable in its effect and realistic in its actions. To demand certain members of a society attempt to perform some unreasonable or impossible act is the height of cruelty as well as stupidity in law making. Yet many modern societies have enacted rules that do just that against certain groups of their own people.
Such rules are able to be struck down on two clear counts – the first being the immorality of such laws and secondly on the unconscionability of such demands.
The fourth Principal of Law is that “all true and proper Law must be both knowable and learnable.” This Principal of Law addresses the logical and moral argument that a reasonable person cannot be bound to a law that they could not possibly know about, nor comprehend. In other words, “secret laws” by virtue of being secret render themselves invalid and unenforceable – regardless of whether a court strikes them down, or injures the law through some gross error of judgement.
A hallmark of all ancient systems of law up until the modern age, was the recognition of this fundamental principal of law. Laws were carved, published and explained in public places such as the Forum in Ancient Rome, in the Agora of Athens and the Markets of Babylon and Egypt and even the entrances of guilds, halls and old churches. It is only largely in the past two hundred years that many societies have chose to effectively “hide” and “abandon” the notion of this principal – despite it being one of the oldest principals of law itself.
Thus the wickedly immoral and evil falsity that claims “ignorance of the law is no excuse” cannot be tolerated by any competent forum of law. Conversely, any reliance upon such immorality and wickedness is a declaration of the complete absence of competence and law in such a forum.