28 of 32 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Important book in the history of ideas, August 27, 2002
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?
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
25 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
a must read for the world's democracy advocates, February 14, 1999
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The man who invented the separation of powers in government, January 16, 2009
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
