Customer Reviews

Montesquieu: The Spirit of the Laws (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought)

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

There are mainly two reasons why Montequieu's book is important. One is for his ideas, which still have relevance for current political issues, such as separation of church and state. The second is that it represents an important historical milestone in political thought. The real bonus is that, in the translation, his work reads in a way that is both intellectually engaging, by which I mean he gets you thinking about the issues, and also engaging (if entertaining is not quite the right word) as a series of philosophical perspectives delivered in a direct way generally free of jargon.
The most interesting part of his book for me was at the outset, in his comparison of despotism, republics and democracy.
The really important aspect of his book is that so many of the threshold policitical issues that he discusses are still live issues. How much should the state intervene? What constitutes good laws? What parts of life in a political society are the business of the state?

I read this book for a class on the philosophy of law. The French philosopher Montesquieu, in his book "Spirit of the Laws," wrote that one of the dangers of "activist" judges was rulings made by judges who are natural law theorist proponents become ex post facto laws for the people before the court, and if judges do this routinely, it would make life for citizens in such a society intolerable. "If judgments were the individual opinion of a judge, one would live in this society without knowing precisely what engagements one has contracted" (158).

Montesquieu makes a very prescient observation relating to judges who have resorted to constitutional comparativism in their written opinions when adjudicating cases before them. Montesquieu is skeptical of the methodology used by judges who refer to foreign law in interpreting a nation's laws. Montesquieu writes in his book Spirit of the Laws that, "Laws should be so appropriate to the people for whom they are made that it is very unlikely that the laws of one nation can suit another" (8). Montesquieu also wrote that, "In republican government, it is in the nature of the constitution for judges to follow the letter of the law" (76).

Montesquieu is best known for being the first person to advocate in his writings for the separation of the judiciary from both the executive and legislative branches of government, an idea our "founders" adopted and has been enshrined in our Constitution as the "separation of powers system" of government. Therefore, Montesquieu does not think it is the prerogative of judges interpreting their nation's constitution or law code to make perceived necessary changes to keep up with changing social values. Montesquieu believes that in a democratic society, the people are sovereign and thus a nation's constitution and law code should be changed by the people's elected representatives and not by appointed judges. Montesquieu is not against citizens changing their Constitution or laws, "... the Constitution should keep up to date--but it should keep up to date with the views of the people."

Montesquieu's genius was in his perception of the history of how nations govern, which has provided ample proof that there is a direct correlation between those democracies that maintain a healthy balance of powers between the branches of government and are the same democracies that are most protected from the danger of slipping into tyranny; whether it is rule by a dictator or rule by a politically privileged few, such as an oligarchy. One of the best-articulated ideas on this subject comes once again from Montesquieu's book, Spirit of the Laws. "Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separate from legislative power and from executive power. If it were joined to legislative power, the power over the life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be a legislator" (157).

Recommended reading for those interested in philosophy, history of America's founding, and political science.

an understanding of Montesquieu is critical for today's emerging democracies, in that he was one of the first to recognize the importance of securing the liberty of the governed with the aid of reason, such as by constitutional design and by the rule of law. The probelm is that there is a caveat to his theory: democracy may not be the best form of government for every country.

Our founding fathers studied Montesquieu's writings of pure democracy and rejected that form of government for our constitution. This book should be read by every student in high school,so they might have a comparison to U.S. Constitution vs other forms of ancient gov- ernments. Our founders were nothing less than brillant to invent a democratic republic;whereby allowing the citizens to rule, but not as a mob.

Ron Steele Moab Utah

This is very interesting about Montesquieu. Every member of congress should read it and take it to heart. It appears that the majority of our founding fathers did read it and take it very seriously. It is something that all Americans who are interested in our government should consider reading. It is amazingly quite easy to read though, I would suggest having a good dictionary handy while reading it. Some of our members of congress I just do not believe would understand, even if someone was reading the dictionary for them. That is a sad commentary about the facts we all must face, however.

I read this book for a class on the philosophy of law. The French philosopher Montesquieu, in his book "Spirit of the Laws," wrote that one of the dangers of "activist" judges was rulings made by judges who are natural law theorist proponents become ex post facto laws for the people before the court, and if judges do this routinely, it would make life for citizens in such a society intolerable. "If judgments were the individual opinion of a judge, one would live in this society without knowing precisely what engagements one has contracted" (158).

Montesquieu makes a very prescient observation relating to judges who have resorted to constitutional comparativism in their written opinions when adjudicating cases before them. Montesquieu is skeptical of the methodology used by judges who refer to foreign law in interpreting a nation's laws. Montesquieu writes in his book Spirit of the Laws that, "Laws should be so appropriate to the people for whom they are made that it is very unlikely that the laws of one nation can suit another" (8). Montesquieu also wrote that, "In republican government, it is in the nature of the constitution for judges to follow the letter of the law" (76).

Montesquieu is best known for being the first person to advocate in his writings for the separation of the judiciary from both the executive and legislative branches of government, an idea our "founders" adopted and has been enshrined in our Constitution as the "separation of powers system" of government. Therefore, Montesquieu does not think it is the prerogative of judges interpreting their nation's constitution or law code to make perceived necessary changes to keep up with changing social values. Montesquieu believes that in a democratic society, the people are sovereign and thus a nation's constitution and law code should be changed by the people's elected representatives and not by appointed judges. Montesquieu is not against citizens changing their Constitution or laws, "... the Constitution should keep up to date--but it should keep up to date with the views of the people."

Montesquieu's genius was in his perception of the history of how nations govern, which has provided ample proof that there is a direct correlation between those democracies that maintain a healthy balance of powers between the branches of government and are the same democracies that are most protected from the danger of slipping into tyranny; whether it is rule by a dictator or rule by a politically privileged few, such as an oligarchy. One of the best-articulated ideas on this subject comes once again from Montesquieu's book, Spirit of the Laws. "Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separate from legislative power and from executive power. If it were joined to legislative power, the power over the life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be a legislator" (157).

Recommended reading for those interested in philosophy, history of America's founding, and political science.

This should be required reading for every high school student in America.

How does one understand the brilliance of our founding fathers and why they rejected total dem- ocracy, vs. democratic republic.

Montesque had insight lacking in our political leaders today.

Excellent work. Anyone with a deep interest in politics and the history of govt who wishes to broaden their understanding would thoroughly enjoy this book.

I read this book for a class on the philosophy of law. The French philosopher Montesquieu, in his book "Spirit of the Laws," wrote that one of the dangers of "activist" judges was rulings made by judges who are natural law theorist proponents become ex post facto laws for the people before the court, and if judges do this routinely, it would make life for citizens in such a society intolerable. "If judgments were the individual opinion of a judge, one would live in this society without knowing precisely what engagements one has contracted" (158).

Montesquieu makes a very prescient observation relating to judges who have resorted to constitutional comparativism in their written opinions when adjudicating cases before them. Montesquieu is skeptical of the methodology used by judges who refer to foreign law in interpreting a nation's laws. Montesquieu writes in his book Spirit of the Laws that, "Laws should be so appropriate to the people for whom they are made that it is very unlikely that the laws of one nation can suit another" (8). Montesquieu also wrote that, "In republican government, it is in the nature of the constitution for judges to follow the letter of the law" (76).

Montesquieu is best known for being the first person to advocate in his writings for the separation of the judiciary from both the executive and legislative branches of government, an idea our "founders" adopted and has been enshrined in our Constitution as the "separation of powers system" of government. Therefore, Montesquieu does not think it is the prerogative of judges interpreting their nation's constitution or law code to make perceived necessary changes to keep up with changing social values. Montesquieu believes that in a democratic society, the people are sovereign and thus a nation's constitution and law code should be changed by the people's elected representatives and not by appointed judges. Montesquieu is not against citizens changing their Constitution or laws, "... the Constitution should keep up to date--but it should keep up to date with the views of the people."

Montesquieu's genius was in his perception of the history of how nations govern, which has provided ample proof that there is a direct correlation between those democracies that maintain a healthy balance of powers between the branches of government and are the same democracies that are most protected from the danger of slipping into tyranny; whether it is rule by a dictator or rule by a politically privileged few, such as an oligarchy. One of the best-articulated ideas on this subject comes once again from Montesquieu's book, Spirit of the Laws. "Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separate from legislative power and from executive power. If it were joined to legislative power, the power over the life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be a legislator" (157).

Recommended reading for those interested in philosophy, history of America's founding, and political science.

I read this book for a class on the philosophy of law. The French philosopher Montesquieu, in his book "Spirit of the Laws," wrote that one of the dangers of "activist" judges was rulings made by judges who are natural law theorist proponents become ex post facto laws for the people before the court, and if judges do this routinely, it would make life for citizens in such a society intolerable. "If judgments were the individual opinion of a judge, one would live in this society without knowing precisely what engagements one has contracted" (158).

Montesquieu makes a very prescient observation relating to judges who have resorted to constitutional comparativism in their written opinions when adjudicating cases before them. Montesquieu is skeptical of the methodology used by judges who refer to foreign law in interpreting a nation's laws. Montesquieu writes in his book Spirit of the Laws that, "Laws should be so appropriate to the people for whom they are made that it is very unlikely that the laws of one nation can suit another" (8). Montesquieu also wrote that, "In republican government, it is in the nature of the constitution for judges to follow the letter of the law" (76).

Montesquieu is best known for being the first person to advocate in his writings for the separation of the judiciary from both the executive and legislative branches of government, an idea our "founders" adopted and has been enshrined in our Constitution as the "separation of powers system" of government. Therefore, Montesquieu does not think it is the prerogative of judges interpreting their nation's constitution or law code to make perceived necessary changes to keep up with changing social values. Montesquieu believes that in a democratic society, the people are sovereign and thus a nation's constitution and law code should be changed by the people's elected representatives and not by appointed judges. Montesquieu is not against citizens changing their Constitution or laws, "... the Constitution should keep up to date--but it should keep up to date with the views of the people."

Montesquieu's genius was in his perception of the history of how nations govern, which has provided ample proof that there is a direct correlation between those democracies that maintain a healthy balance of powers between the branches of government and are the same democracies that are most protected from the danger of slipping into tyranny; whether it is rule by a dictator or rule by a politically privileged few, such as an oligarchy. One of the best-articulated ideas on this subject comes once again from Montesquieu's book, Spirit of the Laws. "Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separate from legislative power and from executive power. If it were joined to legislative power, the power over the life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be a legislator" (157).

Recommended reading for those interested in philosophy, history of America's founding, and political science.