Rule of Law Has Disturbing Trends: ornerstone of our society becomes source of power, not liberty

Wall St Journal ^ | 11-5-02 | GEORGE MELLOAN

[SJackson]

The need for a more reliable rule of law in countries emerging from communism has been much discussed. Economic development is slow in places where politicians and bureaucrats still feel free to trash civil and property rights, abridge private contracts and scoff at anti-corruption measures.

[Leisler]

bump!

Lawyers have become the priest class of our age. They sell indulgences so one may do what one historically, and has every right to do freely. To be a member of the bar today is to have a low number party card in the Nazis or the Communist International.

[victim soul]

As any pro-lifer already knows:

"Our great cornerstone of democracy, the rule of law, has become a source of power and influence, not liberty and justice. I resent the insidious manipulations of those entrusted with such authority and, even more, I despise our deliberate ignorance and passive acceptance of those shackles on the American spirit."

[Phaedrus]

Those who deal with the law at first hand -- legislators, judges, lawyers and regulators -- occupy positions at the pinnacle of power in a constitutional republic. So long as they act in good faith, morally, all benefit, but when the moral constraints erode, as they have since the mid-20th Century, moral cost becomes economic cost in direct proportion to the rise in uncertainty. Those costs are massive. I don't believe that this is at all well-understood. Unbridled democracy, mob rule, is a catalyst to this decay.

Your thoughts?

[n2002duke]

There's a big difference between rule of law and rule of lawyers. In striving for the former, we've ended up with the latter.

[Phaedrus]

We are not a democracy...

[Mia T]

execellent point.

FIGURATIVE DROOL

[bert]

The USA no longer has a Rule of Law....it has a tyranny of lawyers.

The tyrants make the law whatever they want it to be to obtain the highest $$$$ return and the Republic be dammned.

[Dataman]

You are absolutely correct. The liberals understand this better than the general public. That's why they stack the system with left-wing pro-abort from-the-bench legislators.

[wcbtinman]

As with any parasite/varmit situation, we just need an approprite bounty on lawyers for about a year.

[dljordan]

We've got plenty of "LAW" but very little justice.

[SevenDaysInMay]

We face the Law of Rule, tyranny of Blackrobes usurping all ultimate powers through their "judicial reviews" of political agenda litigation.

When we are told what our Constitution and laws mean, under penalty of law, rather than what they clearly say through the written word, we have rulers.

The in-your-face corruption by the Clintonazis is a large step toward fascism - self-serving socialists controlling the major factors of production through graft's Play for Pay, under threat of the police powers of the State.

America has surrendered the doctrine of separation of powers. Our rulers have fatally injured our Republic by demanding interpretations of a "living" Constitution which ignores our Bill of Rights, to the benefit of the expanding powers of government...a government of the government, by the government, and for the government...

We have but a fading illusion of a Rule of Law.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

We are not a democracy...

Democracies fail for the same reason kingdoms fail, the inability to adjust to human nature. That is why we were founded as a republic based on religious and moral principles. Our enemies within, all the aforemention but including labor unions, the media, and a few others, immediately set out, like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc., to first destroy or undermine the chrurch and all religious restrictions. Moral relativism (nothing is right or wrong, just situational) becomes the order of the day. This is a necessary first step to allow greed, injustice masquerading as justice, intimidation, and power usurption to succeed. We are presently near the precipice.

[Phaedrus]

We are presently near the precipice.

We are indeed. The Clinton regime trashed every value and institution in sight while Congress and our other vaunted federal institutions looked on. The knife-edge win by Bush tells us how very close we are and the operative question is whether 9/11 was a sufficient wake-up call. If the Repubs do not make substantial gains today, I fear we are lost. The abyss and chaos await ...

[Alamo-Girl]

Very well said, Phaedrus! I agree with you!!!

[Bush2000]

What's an "ornerstone"?

[r9etb]

The guy's dodging the obvious point: laws are for honest people. The Rule of Law is meaningful only when the people are already predisposed to follow the laws.

The proliferation of laws exists because of the tendency of people to try to find ways around the letter of the law. If you can't trust people to follow the spirit of the law, the motivation is to try to hem them in with the letter of the law.

In dicussions like this, it's always good to remember what John Adams said: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

[justshutupandtakeit]

That is just unadulterated hyperbole extrapolated from half-truths and political rhetoric. This rhetoric cheapens the meaning of true "tyranny." Stalinism, Hitlerism, Maoism were true tyranny nothing comes close here not even Clintonism.

Many so-called Patriots who claim they understand what the Constitution says are full of bull. It is not simple and cannot be understood without close study (it was written by lawyers after all.) Study without a predetermined agenda of "unconstitutional" or "constitutional." Most of the constitutional "experts" around here are transparently ignorant about what the constitution says and means. If they agree with a law or policy it is constitutional if they disagree it is unconstitutional. This is not unique and few Americans in the past really understood the Constitution, revere it as they might, any more than they understood physics. Mythology of the "Golden Age" aside.

Only a fool believes that the nation can do without a Supreme Court to do as the Constitution itself requires. During the discussions at the Constitutional Convention many (Madison for one) believed the Court should have even more power over the States and laws. It is not now our "ruler."

Our Republic is not "fatally" injured and won't be if a large enough segment remains clear as to the meaning of the Constitution. Only excessive ignorance can fatally injure it. But it is growing.