Respect for the rule of law fading?

worksforpigs said:

I think societal moral decay is part of the issue as well as we now have a liberal political establishment which has been heavily infiltrated by radical leftists who teach that the rule of law was set up by the white capitalist for his benefit only and to oppress everyone else. If large numbers of people think that of our system of checks and balances, we're going to have increasing lawlessness and disdain for government.

Also, we have a increasingly permissive voting populace that does not demand people quit campaigns when moral issues emerge for a candidate. I've seen cases in local elections where mayors have been elected AFTER being caught frequenting prostitutes, or people running for various offices were caught having adulterous affairs. Since Gary Hart quit his presidential run after his affair surfaced, I can't name a single politician who had to quit due to his adultery surfacing. The outrage just isn't there anymore, it seems. People don't seem to care how badly a candidate treats his wife, as long as the sex with the other woman is consensual.

Now we have with the Moore case a ton of blatant one-sided political outrage. The uproar against Moore is far louder than against Franken or Conyers. It shouldn't be. We seem to be sliding into a situation where degrading, objectifying, illegal sexual behavior toward females is OK as long as the victim is over the age of 18 and the perpetrator is of a political party one doesn't like.

Click to expand...

That's some serious spin you got going there. The backlash to the repugnance of leftist moral decay is to embrace it? Seriously?

radcen said:

That's some serious spin you got going there. The backlash to the repugnance of leftist moral decay is to embrace it? Seriously?

Click to expand...

Where did I say that?

If you're referring to Moore, the allegations have yet to be proven. That isn't the case with Franken and Conyers.

No spin there, as a former radical leftist, I'm pointing out what this stuff is.

Skeptic Bob said:

I feel exactly the same, but that is of course problematic in itself. There are pros and cons to police being able to decide which laws they will and won't enforce.

Back in the days when Don't Ask, Don't Tell was in place, and I was an officer in the US Army, I looked the other way when I learned one of my soldiers was gay. I had a legal obligation to report it and I ignored that legal obligation. And I haven't lost a second of sleep over it. But what if all soldiers ignored all orders they disagreed with?

Click to expand...

I get where you are coming from, but what would our society be like if every crime or infraction was enforced. We'd be a police state. In your case as an officer, those above you have sent the message that some times things are best left alone if they are on the down low, and you won't get support by stirring up an issue they'd prefer not to have to deal with.

The Rule of Law is not slavish obedience to any piece of legislation or regulation. The Rule of Law is a personal and reasoned devotion to the principle that following widely agreed to and universally applied laws makes for a fairer and more harmonious society than one in which the Rule of Man holds sway. Classical liberalism makes clear that the Rule of Law is not the tyranny of the legislature or the arcane rites and compelled dogma of an unfathomable legal priesthood. We are the law and we are the Rule of Law. It exists because we choose to allow it to exist. That willing compliance makes it powerful and legitimate. If that willing compliance is removed then the Rule of Law is supplanted by coerced obedience and draconian tyranny.

Respect for the Rule of Law has certain preconditions which are important. One is that laws are only legitimate if they are applied universally and fairly for the benefit of the many or ideally all of us. If not, then the law in question is unjust, void and may be opposed with the full knowledge that such opposition may involve very unpleasant consequences coming your way if you cannot marshal enough political clout to make your resistance viable.

Second is political activism. If a state, a legislature or a bureaucracy creates laws or regulations which are vexatious or clearly unfair to targeted segments of the populace, then it is the citizens' joint and several obligation and duty to oppose such laws or regulations as perversions of the Rule of Law. If the citizenry allows legislatures and bureaucrats to pass and enforce bad laws or regulations, then it is the citizens' collective fault that such law or regulation is allowed to stand.

Such popular opposition should at first be through established legal and political channels, but if peaceful and orderly political activism does not work to correct such perversions and abuses then moving to "the out of doors" (AKA "the street") is the next step. Civil disobedience and paralysing public protests should be used to train legislatures, civil services and the courts themselves as to what is legally acceptable and what will not be accepted as legitimate law. The legal system should always operate under the assumption that they are one bad law or one bad legal decision away from revolt, rebellion and the hangman's noose. Fear of a badly treated people is the beginning of legal wisdom. If civil disobedience and protest do not succeed, then direct action or open rebellion are the next very dangerous steps. The decision to escalate to this level of confrontation should never be taken lightly, as the consequences can be horrific. The right to rebellion is predicated on the responsibility to win. If you begin a rebellion but do not win, you're knackered and done for.

If the citizenry does not actively defend the Rule of Law then the law becomes a yoke rather than a safeguard and society devolves into a legally-buttressed oligarchy or a lawless authoritarian and totalitarian nightmare state. The Rule of Law requires vigilance, activism and personal bravery on the part of all of us in order to flourish and it abhors apathy, disengagement, cowardice and opting out of each of our personal responsibilities to defend it. The Rule of Law is not an auto-pilot run by legislatures and courts. It is a metaphorical living and breathing legal organism with which we are all in symbiosis. It requires nourishment and difficult sacrifices from us in order to survive and to be strong. If you do not fight for the Rule of Law, then you will lose it and know now that winning it back tomorrow will be much more costly and demanding, then protecting it today.

So, if you despair for the state of the Rule of Law and see legal abuse and malpractice ongoing around you, then whether young or old, whether tired or driven, whether preoccupied or with time to spare, get off your fat asses, organize, use activism, get out into the streets and thus defend the Rule of Law. It's a messy and imprecise business but We are the law and We are the Rule of Law. If we don't defend it, then no one will. The great men (and women) who use the law to abuse us are only great because we ourselves believe them to be so. Tyrants fall when mistreated people finally come to understand that simple, searing truth and muster the courage to act upon it.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

The Rule of Law is not slavish obedience to any piece of legislation or regulation. The Rule of Law is a personal and reasoned devotion to the principle that following widely agreed to and universally applied laws makes for a fairer and more harmonious society than one in which the Rule of Man holds sway. Classical liberalism makes clear that the Rule of Law is not the tyranny of the legislature or the arcane rites and compelled dogma of an unfathomable legal priesthood. We are the law and we are the Rule of Law. It exists because we choose to allow it to exist. That willing compliance makes it powerful and legitimate. If that willing compliance is removed then the Rule of Law is supplanted by coerced obedience and draconian tyranny.

Respect for the Rule of Law has certain preconditions which are important. One is that laws are only legitimate if they are applied universally and fairly for the benefit of the many or ideally all of us.

Second is political activism. If a state, a legislature or a bureaucracy creates laws or regulations which are vexatious or clearly unfair to targeted segments of the populace, then it is the citizens' joint and several obligation and duty to oppose such laws or regulations as perversions of the Rule of Law. If the citizenry allows legislatures and bureaucrats to pass and enforce bad laws or regulations, then it is the citizens' collective fault that such law or regulation is allowed to stand.

Such popular opposition should at first be through established legal and political channels, but if peaceful and orderly political activism does not work to correct such perversions and abuses then moving to "the out of doors" (AKA "the street") is the next step. Civil disobedience and paralysing public protests should be used to train legislatures, civil services and the courts themselves as to what is legally acceptable and what will not be accepted as legitimate law. The legal system should always operate under the assumption that they are one bad law or one bad legal decision away from revolt, rebellion and the hangman's noose. Fear of a badly treated people is the beginning of legal wisdom. If civil disobedience and protest do not succeed, then direct action or open rebellion are the next very dangerous steps. The decision to escalate to this level of confrontation should never be taken lightly, as the consequences can be horrific. The right to rebellion is predicated on the responsibility to win. If you begin a rebellion but do not win, you're knackered and done for.

If the citizenry does not actively defend the Rule of Law then the law becomes a yoke rather than a safeguard and society devolves into a legally-buttressed oligarchy or a lawless authoritarian and totalitarian nightmare state. The Rule of Law requires vigilance, activism and personal bravery on the part of all of us in order to flourish and it abhors apathy, disengagement, cowardice and opting out of each of our personal responsibilities to defend it. The Rule of Law is not an auto-pilot run by legislatures and courts. It is a metaphorical living and breathing legal organism with which we are all in symbiosis. It requires nourishment and difficult sacrifices from us in order to survive and to be strong. If you do not fight for the Rule of Law, then you will lose it and know now that winning it back tomorrow will be much more costly and demanding, then protecting it today.

So, if you despair for the state of the Rule of Law and see legal abuse and malpractice ongoing around you, then whether young or old, whether tired or driven, whether preoccupied or with time to spare, get off your fat asses, organize, use activism, get out into the streets and thus defend the Rule of Law. It's a messy and imprecise business but We are the law and We are the Rule of Law. If we don't defend it, then no one will. The great men (and women) who use the law to abuse us are only great because we ourselves believe them to be so. Tyrants fall when mistreated people finally come to understand that simple, searing truth and muster the courage to act upon it.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

All that fine political philosophy, and not a word about the jury power, what Jefferson described as the best thing yet devised by man to keep government within its lawful boundaries.

The American jury became a tool of the government beginning with the Sparf decision in 1895. Today's jury is fairly well just a rubber stamp for the government.

I sat through Voire Dire last month, and was chosen. In the process I had to hear the prosecutor repeat several times that "compassion has no place in the courtroom".

I would say that revolt, rebellion or the hangman's noose could probably be avoided by informed juries. The people could take back the rule of law in this country, but it would take a huge grassroots effort by active citizens and informed jurors. My guess is that it is way too late for that to happen.

Responding here without reading others input so I don't let it skew my initial thoughts.

Yes, I believe respect for the rule of law is fading. All you have to do is look at how society has decided to treat it's law enforcers, the real life representatives of the law. It's almost to the point of being "us against them" which is awful. You have bad actors in uniform (small percentage) tainting all of law enforcement. it shouldn't be that way, but our society lives on facebook, WorldStar, Twitter, and Youtube. So people who want to drum up resentment towards the law mix in a lot of non-contextual garbage with a little truth and it washes over the internet like a fire storm. Social media and the 24 hour news cycle are breeding grounds for contempt of the law and the officers who enforce it. And more often than not, if you are a cop who gets filmed doing something someone doesn't agree with, you are guilty regardless of the facts. Even if you don't get filmed, you can still get a social media conviction. And God forbid you end up getting charged and then acquitted...because then you are a guilty cop who got away with a crime and people will burn **** down.

I spent almost 2 decades in law enforcement. I would not ever consider going back into it, even if I could, because despite having a heart for service, I would find it very hard to do my job with conviction and pride. There are simply too many people who make insulting and talking **** to cops a part of their daily routine on social media and many times in person. I still work with agencies all over the country in my civilian career and I honestly feel bad for many of these officers, because they go into work and face an onslaught of abuse and criticism because they wear a badge.

Lerxst said:

Responding here without reading others input so I don't let it skew my initial thoughts.

Yes, I believe respect for the rule of law is fading. All you have to do is look at how society has decided to treat it's law enforcers, the real life representatives of the law. It's almost to the point of being "us against them" which is awful. You have bad actors in uniform (small percentage) tainting all of law enforcement. it shouldn't be that way, but our society lives on facebook, WorldStar, Twitter, and Youtube. So people who want to drum up resentment towards the law mix in a lot of non-contextual garbage with a little truth and it washes over the internet like a fire storm. Social media and the 24 hour news cycle are breeding grounds for contempt of the law and the officers who enforce it. And more often than not, if you are a cop who gets filmed doing something someone doesn't agree with, you are guilty regardless of the facts. Even if you don't get filmed, you can still get a social media conviction. And God forbid you end up getting charged and then acquitted...because then you are a guilty cop who got away with a crime and people will burn **** down.

I spent almost 2 decades in law enforcement. I would not ever consider going back into it, even if I could, because despite having a heart for service, I would find it very hard to do my job with conviction and pride. There are simply too many people who make insulting and talking **** to cops a part of their daily routine on social media and many times in person. I still work with agencies all over the country in my civilian career and I honestly feel bad for many of these officers, because they go into work and face an onslaught of abuse and criticism because they wear a badge.

Click to expand...

A good post, and it reminds me of one of the statements of Hartley Shawcross, a US prosecutor at Nuremberg. "There comes a point when a man must refuse to answer to his leader if he is to also answer to his own conscience."

For some men it is a crisis of conscience to work at enforcing unjust laws. Law enforcement is a thankless job, and poor laws and policies just make matters worse.

Thoreau72 said:

A good post, and it reminds me of one of the statements of Hartley Shawcross, a US prosecutor at Nuremberg. "There comes a point when a man must refuse to answer to his leader if he is to also answer to his own conscience."

For some men it is a crisis of conscience to work at enforcing unjust laws. Law enforcement is a thankless job, and poor laws and policies just make matters worse.

Click to expand...

Thank you. You touched on something that is a problem rarely ever discussed in law enforcement circles - unjust laws. Many officers simply disconnect themselves from the topic, they don't care - the law is the law until it changes. These guys rarely understand what officer discretion is. After about 3 years on the job I was disillusioned at my colleagues who were arresting people for small amounts of marijuana. They would pull them over a traffic violation, search the car, find a pipe or some small baggie of bud, and then arrest them on a drug violation, tow their car, take them to jail, and right them every ticket they thought was applicable, and make them bond on all them. I never understood that. It started grinding on me. So my last year on patrol I did not arrest anybody for weed unless it was a felony amount (we had a policy that any felony violation meant arrest, regardless of the nature). I dumped a lot of baggies out on the side of the road and broke and threw a lot pipes and scales into the nearest dumpster. I developed a pretty good number of relationships with the greasy side of the populace because I gave them a break or got a ticket voided for them. I'll take information on a burglary or rape suspect any day, and I'd have no problem helping an informant out if they helped me get someone worse.

I was an outspoken opponent of the war on drugs through most of my career. And believe it or not, I was promoted to investigator and then lieutenant faster than anyone else in the history of my department. I had a great Sheriff who had an open mind and cared about building a good relationship with everybody, not just his voters. My career would have been cut short anywhere else, I'm sure. Locking people up and wrecking their future over a minor marijuana charge is asinine. Besides, I have never, EVER been assaulted by someone high on weed. In fact they were the most docile of people I've ever dealt with. Drunks and meth users...different story.

Another one that gets me is suspending a guys license because he falls behind on his child support. Now he can't go to work and actually pay his child support, and if he risks it and gets pulled over, now he gets a driving while suspended charge, loses his license for an extended mandatory period. Keep in mind I'm not talking about those assholes who refuse to pay for their kids for months or years, I'm talking about the guys who get a month or two behind or don't pay the full amount, the working dads who are trying.

But everyone here knows there a great many LEO's who will use what tools they are given to take bad guys off the street. So there is a flip side to those cheesy laws such as "no license plate light" or many other things people typically don't realize is a violation of the law like driving in the left hand lane of failing to stop at or before a stop sign or stop line. I know guys would routinely pull someone over for going mere inches over the stop line at an intersection. Sometimes it was a good call because they knew the subject was a habitual drug offender or suspect in some other crime, and I have no problem with that. But there are also guys who simply want to drive their numbers to show that they are proactive and aggressive on the job. Bad police work in my opinion because it doesn't actually further the interest of justice.

Yeah, glad I'm not doing that anymore.

Clearly I should proof read before hitting the post button.

You are a rare individual, and it's easy to understand why you got out when you did.

I have supported LEAP over the years. That used to stand for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, but this year became Law Enforcement Action Partnership. Other good men like you speaking out for policy sanity.

https://lawenforcementactionpartnership.org/

Skeptic Bob said:

Am I the only one experiencing this level of disillusion?

Click to expand...

Laws don't tell us what is right and wrong, what is right and wrong should tell us what the laws are.

Now, it is true that as members of society we must to a certain degree sacrifice a degree of freedom for the improvement and stability of the society overall and we can't just go around ignoring any law that we don't like or don't understand, but we must resist the temptation to let anger and fear drive us to impose poorly thought out reactionary laws that may potentially cause as much harm as they do good, if they do any good at all. It is because anger and fear are such powerful emtions that most societies inevitably gravitate away from freedom and liberty and towards totalitarian control.

Trump is the epitome of it. His base is nothing but fearful xenophobic, misogynistic, racist, homophobic, islamophobic she heads who don't care about his lies or his bullying because they see him as a hero and protector that's looking out for them and will stand tough against the outside evil. This Republican party is not even trying to clearly think through any of the actions they are attempting to take they are just angry reactions to anything that is anti-Obama or anti-Hillary because they represent an end to the dominance of white men regardless of whether any of their policies were actually were harmful in anyway to white men.

Thoreau72 said:

You are a rare individual, and it's easy to understand why you got out when you did.

I have supported LEAP over the years. That used to stand for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, but this year became Law Enforcement Action Partnership. Other good men like you speaking out for policy sanity.

https://lawenforcementactionpartnership.org/

Click to expand...

I wonder why they changed their name. The old name was better descriptive. The new name is too vague and doesn't say what they do. I looked at your link and couldn't find anything.