Nevertheless it must be noted, that if the observance of the law according to the letter does not involve any sudden risk needing instant remedy, it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful to the state:  those alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws.  If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.

Reply Obj. 1:  He who in a case of necessity acts beside the letter of the law, does not judge the law; but of a particular case in which he sees that the letter of the law is not to be observed.

Reply Obj. 2:  He who follows the intention of the lawgiver, does not interpret the law simply; but in a case in which it is evident, by reason of the manifest harm, that the lawgiver intended otherwise.  For if it be a matter of doubt, he must either act according to the letter of the law, or consult those in power.

Reply Obj. 3:  No man is so wise as to be able to take account of every single case; wherefore he is not able sufficiently to express in words all those things that are suitable for the end he has in view.  And even if a lawgiver were able to take all the cases into consideration, he ought not to mention them all, in order to avoid confusion:  but should frame the law according to that which is of most common occurrence. ________________________

QUESTION 97

OF CHANGE IN LAWS
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider change in laws:  under which head there are four points of inquiry: 

(1) Whether human law is changeable?

(2) Whether it should be always changed, whenever anything better occurs?

(3) Whether it is abolished by custom, and whether custom obtains the force of law?

(4) Whether the application of human law should be changed by dispensation of those in authority? ________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 97, Art. 1]

Whether Human Law Should Be Changed in Any Way?

Objection 1:  It would seem that human law should not be changed in any way at all.  Because human law is derived from the natural law, as stated above (Q. 95, A. 2).  But the natural law endures unchangeably.  Therefore human law should also remain without any change.

Obj. 2:  Further, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 5), a measure should be absolutely stable.  But human law is the measure of human acts, as stated above (Q. 90, AA. 1, 2).  Therefore it should remain without change.

Obj. 3:  Further, it is of the essence of law to be just and right, as stated above (Q. 95, A. 2).  But that which is right once is right always.  Therefore that which is law once, should be always law.