Carl Schmitt noted that, “the sovereign is the one who decides on the exception.” That is, when the system of laws established in a given state fail to meet an unexpected crisis in that state, the one who has the authority to act in that crisis is the sovereign. Or, if the exception is what proves the rule, the one who has the authority in that exception transcends the rule and so cannot be judged by it. The question is for us to determine who or what that sovereign is.
In the United States, there is a constant struggle going on to determine who its sovereign is. While many might not like the notion that there is a sovereign, nonetheless, it is clear there will always be someone who is in charge, who has that final authority. A traditional way to determine who that sovereign is was to see who holds the greater power for the greatest exception. In this way, the President of the United States was shown to be that sovereign because of his power of its nuclear arsenal. However, in the current crisis with the oil spill in the gulf, we are seeing a rival for that power coming out and making their dash for power. While one might think we have seen a judicial claim for sovereignty being exercised with the over-turning of the President’s temporary ban on deep off-shore drilling, that is an overly simplistic interpretation of the decision. When in the middle of a crisis to the political system, the judicial branch serves the sovereign and helps make sure the true sovereign remains in authority. Where the judicial branch lends its support, where it says the exception lies, there we can see one of the claimants for power. And if we look carefully, it appears that the judge has ruled that businesses are sovereign, that in the middle of a crisis, their authority is to be followed and not questioned.
We have seen many people who support business say that they are against “big government,” and they encourage people to dismiss the sovereignty of “big government.” But what they mean by big government is the current political authority. Through propaganda, people believe that if we turn everything over to business we would not be ruled “big government;” they have been blinded to the fact that if we give the exception to business, they have become our sovereign and hence can be said to be the real authority behind our government — they would be our real government. Now, if people argue that business can handle governing better and so this is why they should be given sovereignty, at least they should make that case without ignoring the fact that business is being made sovereign. However, for me, the business model of governing ignores many issues which I find necessary for government, such as support for the dignity of the human person and a desire to work for the common good. Businesses model their judgments on pure economic concerns. Is that really what we want from our sovereign?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In