Posted by
David R. Lunden on Friday, January 09, 2009 2:49:49 AM
I voted for Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential election. Then, I was fired in the air traffic controller strike in 1981. It took me about nineteen months to win my job back in court. No sooner did I get back to work when Air Force 1 (President Reagan) flew through the airspace I was working. The controllers around me were expecting me to do something such as giving an unnecessary delay or a re-route or altitude change. What did I do? I voted for him again in the 1984 election. There was something more important than me.
The Republicans, the Conservatives, the Right, and especially the moderates have no ideal to strive toward. An ideal is something one works to achieve knowing in some cases it may not be attainable. The concept of Heaven on Earth is an example. There is no excuse to not try.
The Rule of Law is an ideal worth working toward. We live in a nation of law, we are governed by law it's the law that rules. Or, what is more commonly taught it's a nation of law and not men. Again, it's the law that rules. That's not the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is the standard that is used to determine if law either proposed or on the books is valid.
In the Rule of Law: law cannot be retroactive. The founding fathers knew this when the wrote "no expo facto law". It's the reason we have grandfather clauses to various laws today. Without them we could not plan our future today knowing someone in the future could pass a law undoing what was planed today. Law has to be consistent over time. The tax code is an example of a violation of this tenent in the rule of law.
In the Rule of Law: The penalty for violating the law has to be foreknown. The founding fathers knew this when the wrote "equal protection under the law". It keeps political crime to a minimum. Law has to be consistent among men.
In the Rule of Law: Law cannot give any individual of group an advantage over any other individual or group. This is the foundational argument for campaign finance reform. All anyone needs to do is to go to the law books and point out all of the law that shouldn't be there and repeal it. (like that's going to happen any time soon) Again, Law has to be consistent among men.
In order for law to give it must first take. There are only two reasons for law the exist. They can be used to protect life, liberty, and property or to take life, liberty, and property. The founding fathers chose to protect. How did they do it? Morality? We do not murder each other, we do not steal from each other, we do not bear false witness against each other, and we do not act on our jealousies. You should recognize these as four of the ten commandments. Thou shall not.... None of them say thou shall not except under condition of.... There are no conditions under which these behaviors are acceptable. Since they are unconditional they are absolutes and because they are absolutes they are consistent over time which gives us a standard from which we can base our judgements. Rational thought can now occur.
A violation of a law is not a crime until the accuser proves criminal intent (take life, liberty, property) because, without proof how does one distinguish between a crime and an accident? Without proving intent there is no presumption of innocence.
In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson mentioned "light and transient causes." The ever changing planks in the Republican platform are an example of light and transient causes. The Republicans need a never changing ideal.
My understanding of the Rule of Law comes from Friedrich A. Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty; University of Chicago Press, 1960
Dave