Posted on 07/20/2012 8:16:16 PM PDT by neverdem
The greatest distinguishing factor between countries in which there is some freedom and those where authoritarian governments manage personal behavior is the Rule of Law. The idea that the very laws that the government is charged with enforcing could restrain the government itself is uniquely Western and was accepted with near unanimity at the time of the creation of the American Republic. Without that concept underlying the exercise of governmental power, there is little hope for freedom.
The Rule of Law is a three-legged stool on which freedom sits. The first leg requires that all laws be enacted in advance of the behavior they seek to regulate and be crafted and promulgated in public by a legitimate authority. The goal of all laws must be the preservation of individual freedom. A law is not legitimate if it is written by an evil genius in secret or if it punishes behavior that was lawful when the behavior took place or if its goal is to solidify the strength of those in power. It also is not legitimate if it is written by the president instead of Congress.
The second leg is that no one is above the law and no one is beneath it. Thus, the law's restraints on force and fraud need to restrain everyone equally, and the law's protections against force and fraud must protect everyone equally. This leg removes from the discretion of those who enforce the law the ability to enforce it or to afford its protections selectively. This principle also requires that the law enforcers enforce the law against themselves. Of course, this was not always the case. In 1628, the British Parliament spent days debating the question "Is the king above the Rule of Law, or is the Rule of Law above the king?" Thankfully, the king lost -- but only by 10 votes out of several hundred cast.
The third leg of the Rule of Law requires that the structures that promulgate, enforce and interpret law be so fundamental -- Congress writes the laws, the president enforces the laws, the courts interpret the laws -- that they cannot be changed retroactively or overnight by the folks who administer them. Stated differently, this leg mandates that only a broad consensus can change the goals or values or structures used to implement the laws; they cannot be changed by atrophy or neglect or crisis.
The values in America are set forth in the Declaration of Independence, and the governmental structures in America are set forth in the Constitution. The former -- that our rights are inalienable and come from our Creator and not from the government -- is not merely a recitation of Thomas Jefferson's musings. The Declaration is the articulation of our values then and now, and it, too, is the law of the land.
The Constitution was written -- largely by James Madison -- to define and to limit the federal government, and it was quickly amended by adding the Bill of Rights so as to be sure that natural rights would be respected by the government. This tension between the power of the majority -- at the ballot box or in Congress -- and the rights of the minority -- whether a discrete class of persons or a minority of one -- is known as the Madisonian dilemma. Stated differently, the Constitution provides for protection against the tyranny of the majority.
In our system, the power to resolve the dilemma is reposed into the hands of the judiciary, and those who have that power are to resolve it without regard to popularity or politics. Their oath is to the Constitution. They have the final say on what the laws mean. If they follow the Rule of Law, they will invalidate that which the government has done and which is properly challenged before them and which is not authorized by the Constitution. Their very purpose is to be anti- democratic, lest the popular majority takes whatever lives, liberties or property it covets. In return for life tenure, we expect judicial modesty, and we demand constitutional fidelity -- not political compromise.
In our era, the violations of the Rule of Law have become most troublesome when the government breaks its own laws. Prosecute Roger Clemens for lying to Congress? What about all the lies Congress tells? Prosecute John Edwards for cheating? What about all the cheating in Congress when it enacts laws it hasn't read? Bring the troops home from the Middle East? What about all the innocents killed secretly by the president using CIA drones? Can't find a way to justify Obamacare under the Constitution? Why not call it what its proponents insisted it isn't -- a tax?
We live in perilous times. The president acts above the Rule of Law and fights his own wars. Congress acts below the Rule of Law by letting the president do whatever he can get away with. And this summer, the Supreme Court rewrote the Rule of Law.
What do we do about it?
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written six books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is "It Is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom."
We have moved from the “Giant sucking sound” to the “Giant gang bang thump sound”. It is incredible how everyday pundits keep acting like the characters in the chainsaw massacre, not minding a bit about what is happening right before their eyes, as if nothing was happening or was about to happen. It’s like the girl who is ignoring she is being lured in the back alley.
Rule of Law-—was eloquently elaborated on by Cicero. The idea that there is a Higher Power—God—is the basis of Rule of Law—so no one is above the Law.
Higher Power was evoked by Martin Luther King, Jr. and at the Nuremberg Trials. What makes Laws “Just”—they HAVE to promote Virtue—as understood by the Nicomachean Ethics—later, in Western Civilization, by Judeo-Christian Ethics. Common Law was created by Christians and it became the basis of our jurisprudence—which eventually became the most perfect legal system in the history of mankind.
John Austin and his ideology ruined American Law. It is promoted in almost all law schools. It now has completely infiltrated our legal system so we get judges who rule by irrational urges—and feelings—and say there is a right to Sodomy-—a VICE!!!! This is absurd, because Higher Law is from God—not Satan. The idea that morality can be separated from law destroys justice and now permeates our legal system.
When Rule of Law is destroyed——by unjust laws—(Laws posited without regard to the Laws of Nature and Reason and Logic) —then tyranny will always result. Cicero witnessed it in Rome and wrote about the injustice which was destroying the civil society. He died for noting the truth.
We should eject all laws that were written after 1912 and return to the philosophy of our Founders and John Marshall and reject the Marxist/Austinian philosophy of the Postmodernists that destroy the meaning and intent of our Constitution. Socialism has to be eliminated. It is fascism and slavery.
Napolitano might be as close as we have to a modern day George Washington.
It may seem quixiotic to propose a constitutional convention, but in the ‘60s, an effort was made came close to obtaining the permission of two-thirds of the states to command the calling of such permission. I think it was the scotus decision forcing the states to base representation in its upper chambers on population. IAC, it CAN be done if the political will is there. My doubts arise from the complacency in in the reddest of states.
Liberals are blind to the fact that their success is builded on pre-liberal and even anti-liberal foundations. They think that “progression” entails the destruction of these foundations. The French Revolution showed what happens if one succeeds in doing this. Church, throne, nobility: the ancient provinces that were virtual countries in themselves, and in their place new foundations built on air, water, fire, but not on earth.
Part of the problem is that even though conservatives are on the right side of every issue, most of the time we concede to liberals.
In retrospect, it really is quite shocking how much personal freedom we have abdicated to the bureaucracy.
The United States really isn’t a free country anymore, and even though some states are more free than others, the federal government still reigns supreme.
It always fascinates me that conservatives can go abroad and have the fortitude to fight Communists and terrorists, but don’t have that same courage and fortitude to fight the Commies and terrorists AKA liberals in own backyard.
In any case, his thinking is antithetical to that of Obama, Pelosi, Reid and —sadly— John Roberts.
The safest would be to start a new third party with truth as its foundation. No more lying to the people. Call it the Tea Party or Truth Party. Unfortunately, running anew political party would not fix the core corruption problem within the US government. And any new party might get corrupted itself while enduring the process.
The next option which I think is less safe then the prior option, would be an orderly secession. Not a historian on the topic, but the south had for all intents and purposes seceded from the north. It was only the attack on a left over still occupied Union fort that started the war. Although I could be wrong on that. At any rate, an orderly secession as the federal government collapses fiscally (ie - runaway monetary inflation) would be theoretically possible.
The next option of course involves more danger. That would be a civil war. Now Civil Wars themselves have been quite common over historic times. In fact, there is one occurring right now in Syria. And it happens to be against a state possessing WMD. Oddly enough the current US leadership supports the rebels in that civil war. This procedure however has always included lots of casualties for both rebels and state defenders. It is the last option that should be chosen - IMHO. Unless of course excitement and payback is what you want.
X2 Ya beat me.
And read this, too
The Communist by Paul Kengor
Agreed ... and he doesn't *think* like them, either! :)
Well, yes, Liberals are quite blind. They are ideologues and devoid of reason.
But they did twist the word Liberal—to mean slavery to the State—like all good Marxists do—they destroy the language—change and twist words so they become devoid of meaning-—like homosexual “marriage”.
Liberals made the words “Patriarchy” and “Hierarchy” evil words, when those two systems of organization are responsible for greatness and power and excellence beyond belief. Such natural and efficient way to set up a civil society.
Marxism creates artificial constructs to organize society which needs totalitarian rule because it is not natural—goes against the nature of man—like their radical egalitarianism which states man is woman is dog is horse. There is no reason.
Political Correctness was established by Mao to control the ideas that the masses were permitted to have.
We need to regain freedom and learn about the true greatness of Western Civ and the goodness of hierarchy and order and nobility and Virtue. The genius of Western Civilization and Christianity was to learn from the past......Liberals/Marxists destroy the past—all knowledge of the greatness. Marxist erase history from the schools, so they can create their ignorant drones who have never heard of Adam Smith and Plato, so believe their lies.
It is a compund government created through a compound process. The state legislatures did not create the federal government. There were special constitutional conventions with representative chosen by the people of each state for that task. That is so that the people would remain the prime authority for the delegation of power. They removed a portion of the power they had delegated to the sovereign states under the Confederation and revested that power with the new federal government.
Charge them with treason.
Our ancestors would have started shooting by now.
As the old DI used to command,"With ball ammunition, lock and load".
As to what I will or will not do is known only by me. I do know from life's experiences that sitting in the stands never won a game.
I can not fault your conclusion because it is an accurate observation of the super majority of today's Americans.
I suggest Andrew start by going over and beating some sense into his evil sister.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.