Suppose a king of a small country—or a mayor of a small city—declares that John Livingston must buy everyone in town a steak dinner. Their claim of legitimate authority to make such a decree, whether granted or presumed, is one thing; the legitimacy of the decree itself is quite another. Here, moral right and legal justification stand at odds.
Now imagine a town hall meeting where 252 citizens vote to require John Livingston to buy everyone in the neighborhood a steak dinner. Under their version of “democracy,” they may believe they hold lawful authority to compel such an act. But does a majority vote make their action moral or ethical? Again, legality and morality fail to align—and that misalignment lies at the heart of many abuses of power.
The Foundations of Legitimate Authority: A monarch, a legislature, or a neighborhood board may assert the right to issue decrees. Yet moral legitimacy does not follow from mere assertion of power. In America, authority is legitimate only when it rests on laws grounded in the moral sense of the people. When decrees and ordinances are enacted without reference to well-defined moral or ethical principles, their legitimacy is rightly questioned. And when officials—whether in government or “quasi-judicial” bodies—act for personal or special interests, their legal footing becomes as shaky as their moral one.
These truths echo from the opening lines of our Declaration of Independence. A king, a mob, or a legislature may each claim authority, but legitimacy of power and legitimacy of action are not the same thing.
The Necessity of Checks and Balances: This is precisely why representative government demands checks and balances. At every level—national, state, and local—laws and codes exist to restrain illegitimate acts. At the federal and state levels, two legislative bodies must concur, and the executive must ratify those laws. Municipal codes, in turn, must conform to state statutes, and courts exist to test their fidelity to both law and moral principle.
So, when a city council or neighborhood board attempts to compel John Livingston to buy 252 steak dinners—because of actions taken on his own property, to which they were not a party—thank goodness checks and balances remain. Whether monarchy, mob, or majority, those who exercise power must always answer one question: Prove your legitimacy.
Madison’s Warning; James Madison addressed this tension in Federalist No. 51:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
Governments exist to control men—but must also control themselves. I can speak only for myself in admitting that I am no angel. In my lifetime, I have yet to meet one serving in any level of government or on any neighborhood board. Rules exist not for the angels who do not need them, but for the rest of us who do.
Madison’s Federalist No. 10 carried the warning further: while minority factions can be checked by majority vote, majority factions—the tyranny of the crowd—are far more dangerous. The Founders feared unrestrained democracy, what they called “mob rule,” more than they feared monarchy.
Conclusion: Just because a king—or a legislative majority—decrees that John Livingston must buy 252 steak dinners does not make it lawful, moral, or ethical. True legitimacy does not arise from numbers, titles, or votes. It springs only from alignment between authority, law, and enduring moral principle—the foundation on which the American experiment was built.
