"Rule of Law" is not just a catchphrase

There are many definitions, applications and criticisms of the concept of "the Rule of Law". It is based about incessantly on news shows and in print, but what does it mean? Is it a good or bad thing?

The rule of law is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: "The authority and influence of law in society, especially when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behavior; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes."

Click to expand...

(Wikipedia). I think that's a good starting point. Is that a valid construction? Is it laudable?

Personally, I am a big believer in the Rule of Law, and, in particular, the Constitution. I think that fits the Oxford definition. I'd like to keep this substantive and thoughtful, but I'm going to leave the question open.

Closely associated with the rule of law is the idea that all men stand equal before the law, and that no man is above the law.

Today and for years, that is not the case in this country.

Thoreau72 said:

Closely associated with the rule of law is the idea that all men stand equal before the law, and that no man is above the law.

Today and for years, that is not the case in this country.

Click to expand...

The rule of law only applies to people who don't have the money to get out of breaking the law. The idea is wonderful, the execution, not so good.

bongsaway said:

The rule of law only applies to people who don't have the money to get out of breaking the law. The idea is wonderful, the execution, not so good.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with either comment (I also noticed a spellcheck-induced typo in the OP). I think, when ethically applied, the Constitution, particularly the bill of rights, provides a good blueprint for how the rule of law is supposed to work. People and governments work better when the Rules are well known and adhered to. Society breaks down, however, when some are "exempt" from norms.

NWRatCon said:

There are many definitions, applications and criticisms of the concept of "the Rule of Law". It is based about incessantly on news shows and in print, but what does it mean? Is it a good or bad thing? (Wikipedia). I think that's a good starting point. Is that a valid construction? Is it laudable?

Personally, I am a big believer in the Rule of Law, and, in particular, the Constitution. I think that fits the Oxford definition. I'd like to keep this substantive and thoughtful, but I'm going to leave the question open.

Click to expand...

NWRatCon:

The Rule of Law is a very tricky concept and no clear definition of it has been arrived at yet, despite your good start cited above from the Oxford Dictionary. The Rule of Law on the surface would seem sensible as all societies need rules and laws to define and limit how the citizens/real persons and institutions/legal persons interact with each other (rights, freedoms, privileges and responsibilities) and how the state interacts with institutions and citizens in its role as the governing power(defined powers, default powers and limits to powers). To do this the Rule of Law must be tempered by the responsibility of justice and fairness. It must be based on openly disclosed and readily available laws (no secret law). It must be proactive and never retro-active. It must be universally applied to all and never be preferentially designed or applied in order to institutionalise privilege or preference to the advantage of one group over others. It must not single out individuals or groups in order to disadvantage them either, unless there is a very good reason and has a very strong political mandate to do so, and then only temporality. It must be simple enough that the average citizen (not a lawyer but a layman/woman) can understand it fully and thus be informed about it. It cannot be created and maintained by an elite or an oligarchy or a dictatorship, otherwise it becomes the Tyranny of Law rather than the Rule of Law. It must be applied by a judicial system which is impartial and not beholden to the governing organs of the state. The laws must be carefully crafted and stable (not always changing) in order to not advantage or prejudice groups or individuals in society unless that is the explicitly stated purpose of the law which has a definite and short-term of effect (sun-set clauses) and a mandate from the citizenry. Finally in a society where the Rule of Law is to exist there must be mechanisms in place for citizens to civilly and democratically challenge laws and strike them down over and above the power of the state to impose and maintain them.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Thanks, Evilroddy, for a well-developed response. You actually touched on a number of points that I intended to raise later (regarding tyranny), so I'm doubly appreciative.

NWRatCon said:

There are many definitions, applications and criticisms of the concept of "the Rule of Law". It is based about incessantly on news shows and in print, but what does it mean? Is it a good or bad thing? (Wikipedia). I think that's a good starting point. Is that a valid construction? Is it laudable?

Personally, I am a big believer in the Rule of Law, and, in particular, the Constitution. I think that fits the Oxford definition. I'd like to keep this substantive and thoughtful, but I'm going to leave the question open.

Click to expand...

The rule of law is only possible when those administering the law are disconnected from those it’s applied to.

Practically, the best you can get is a system where 99.99% of people are subject to the rule of law. But the top elites will always prosper or suffer according to who their friends and enemies are.

AmNat said:

The rule of law is only possible when those administering the law are disconnected from those it’s applied to.

Practically, the best you can get is a system where 99.99% of people are subject to the rule of law. But the top elites will always prosper or suffer according to who their friends and enemies are.

Click to expand...

The rule of law is possible only when those administering the law are conscientious individuals. When they are not beholden to special interests.

We are a very long way from that ideal today, as Julian Assange is in prison for exposing the crimes of government.

Thoreau72 said:

The rule of law is possible only when those administering the law are conscientious individuals. When they are not beholden to special interests.

We are a very long way from that ideal today, as Julian Assange is in prison for exposing the crimes of government.

Click to expand...

I agree with the first sentiment, but not the second (for reasons I have elaborated elsewhere - but, in short, I don't think he's in prison for exposing the crimes of government, but for how he behaved to obtain them - it's a fine, but important, distinction).

It has to be remembered that laws are administered by people, and people are flawed creatures in the best of times. I agree, that it is a matter of ideals. When people of good faith create and administer the laws, they can be very powerful reminders of what is best in ourselves. The times we live in remind us that when people of bad faith get hold of those self-same laws, they can be powerful reminders that oppression is still possible with even the best-intentioned regime of laws. I believe that our set of standards are a pretty good recitation of good ideals. Again, because they were created by humans, they are imperfect, and are acknowledged as such: "toward a more perfect union." Another iteration of those ideals are expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was an attempt to set out "Universal Values", or "core principles".

The core principles of human rights first set out in the UDHR, such as universality, interdependence and indivisibility, equality and non-discrimination, and that human rights simultaneously entail both rights and obligations from duty bearers and rights owners, have been reiterated in numerous international human rights conventions, declarations, and resolutions. Today, all United Nations member States have ratified at least one of the nine core international human rights treaties, and 80 percent have ratified four or more, giving concrete expression to the universality of the UDHR and international human rights.

Click to expand...

I think when those ideals are put into writing it operates as a touchstone to return to whenever we get off track (and boy are we off track!). That, I think, is what the Constitution represents, and the opportunity it presents to rectify our current situation.

Thoreau72 said:

The rule of law is possible only when those administering the law are conscientious individuals. When they are not beholden to special interests.

Click to expand...

And when pigs fly, bacon will skyrocket.

The law will always be administered by human beings. Even if you banned all lobbying, people who actually know each other aren't going to behave impartially.

We are a very long way from that ideal today, as Julian Assange is in prison for exposing the crimes of government.

Click to expand...

This is true, but no government could be expected to remain impartial regarding a prominent foreigner exposing its secrets.

AmNat said:

And when pigs fly, bacon will skyrocket.

The law will always be administered by human beings. Even if you banned all lobbying, people who actually know each other aren't going to behave impartially.



This is true, but no government could be expected to remain impartial regarding a prominent foreigner exposing its secrets.

Click to expand...

The rule of law demands that the elected officials sworn to uphold that Constitution remain impartial and follow the law they are sworn to uphold. That they don't is malfeasance of epic proportions.

Trump, Barr, and the Rule of Law (New Yorker, Opinion).

The Administration’s persistent attempts to stymie congressional oversight don’t bear much in the way of legal merit. In April, a district court in Washington, D.C., denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the emoluments lawsuit brought by the members of Congress. The clause was intended to prevent corruption, by banning federal officials from accepting financial benefits from foreign governments without first obtaining congressional approval. Trump contends that any such profits he has received—ranging from Trump trademarks being granted by the Chinese government to Saudi-funded lobbyists staying in Trump hotels—don’t count, because he didn’t come by them as a direct result of duties performed in office. The court concluded that this argument is not only “inconsistent with the text, structure, historical interpretation, adoption and purpose of the clause” but also “contrary to Executive branch practice over the course of many years.”

Click to expand...

The Democrats in Congress are knowingly, willfully and deliberated engaging in obstruction of justice by threatening the Attorney General with impeachment and contempt because:

1. He said he is investigating the use of federal law enforcement and the DOJ illegally for political purposes and
2. to try to force him to commit the criminal act of releasing grand jury testimony and national security secrets.

The Democrats in Congress openly are SPITTING on the Rule Of Law.

joko104 said:

The Democrats in Congress are knowingly, willfully and deliberated engaging in obstruction of justice by threatening the Attorney General with impeachment and contempt because:

1. He said he is investigating the use of federal law enforcement and the DOJ illegally for political purposes and
2. to try to force him to commit the criminal act of releasing grand jury testimony and national security secrets.

The Democrats in Congress openly are SPITTING on the Rule Of Law.

Click to expand...

Spit won't even touch it. Too completely encased in trump ****.