Dual Sovereignty in Traditional Judaism and Liberal Democracy

In the course of his lecture, Professor Levinson remarked: "[A]ll of us believe that there must be some limits to political authority, even if we might disagree on the source of such limitation."This is the core principle of liberal government, and as Levinson well knows, many creeds-secular and religious-do not accept it.One classic ground of limits is the direct rational or intuitive apprehension of moral laws.Levinson gestures toward this when he speaks of individuals subject to sovereign authority who believe that the sovereign is commanding "grotesque injustice."As he notes, under the aegis of some theological positions, individual awareness of moral restraints can serve as limitations on divine as well as earthly sovereignty.As Abraham famously asks, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" 1 (I leave open the question, raised by David Novak, of whether there is a Jewish equivalent of natural law or right.) 2 It is odd to describe reason as an alternative "sovereign"; not so when the source of governmental limits lies in principles that are divinely ordained and acts that are divinely commanded.God is sovereign-indeed, many believe, the ultimate sovereign.However, the challenge that revealed religion poses for civil government is anything but straightforward.Speaking broadly and schematically, there are three possible relations between political and religious authority.First, political au-* William A. Galston serves as a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute where he holds a chair in the Governance Studies Program.As an expert on elections, political campaigns, and domestic policy, Mr. Galston previously served as a policy advisor to President Clinton and other presidential candidates.His research is currently focused on crafting "a new social contract and the implications of political polarization."William A. Galston