The State of exception (n.) shows ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠the secret of every application of law: to apply a norm, you finally have to suspend its application and produce an exception.

The State of exception (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠a child of the democratic revolutions, not of the absolute monarchs.

The State of exception (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠the legal form of what cannot have legal form: a measure of law that law itself cannot explain.

The State of exception (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠the rule for the oppressed, said Benjamin — so our task is to bring about a real one.

Law (n.) that ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠is studied but no longer practiced is not justice but the gate to it.

The Law (n.) contains ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠a fracture between the norm and its application, and in extreme cases only the state of exception fills it: application suspended, law still in force.

A Law (n.) binds ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠only because it serves the common good; where it fails at that, Aquinas held, it loses its power to oblige.

Law (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠pulled by two opposite forces: one hardening toward a perfect system of norms that can barely touch life, the other sliding toward the exception, where force without norm simply takes hold of life.

Necessity (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠never simply objective: the only necessary circumstances are those someone declares necessary.

Necessity (n.) has ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠no law — an adage read two opposite ways: necessity recognizes no law, and necessity makes its own law.

Necessity (n.) comes ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠down in the end to a decision — and what it decides on is something undecidable in fact and in law.

Necessity (n.) did ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠not suspend the law at all for the medievals; it simply let one particular case slip free of the law's letter.

Sovereign (n.) sits ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠in the state where God sits in the Cartesian world, for Schmitt; for Benjamin he is lord of creatures, but still a creature.

Sovereign (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠where the crack running through the law can no longer be mended: between power and its exercise a gap opens that no decision can fill.

Sovereign (n.) stands ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠outside the legal order and yet belongs to it: being-outside and belonging at once, the oxymoron of an ecstatic belonging.

Sovereign (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠lawless at his core precisely because he is living law; the exception is the hidden, truer life of the law.

The Force of law (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠best written with the law crossed out: in the state of exception it is a force of law without law, a mystical fiction through which law tries to annex lawlessness.

The Force of law (n.) reached ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠its limit case under the Nazis, where, as Eichmann kept repeating, the Führer's words themselves had the force of law.

The Force of law (n.) belongs, ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠strictly speaking, not to laws but to decrees that are not laws — it names the moment a law's binding power floats free of the law itself.

Anomie (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠a space so unthinkable that ancients and moderns alike recoil from it: what is a human act done in a total void of law?

Anomie (n.) has ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠been assumed since Durkheim to breed anxiety — yet the ethnological record of festivals and mourning suggests the opposite.

Anomie (n.) is ⁠​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​⁠the empty space law and language both need: law lives only by capturing lawlessness, as language lives only by grasping the nonlinguistic.