Rule of Law

[occupied]

Our Laws are administered by our Government....not by Martians. Second, you assume every poor person gets the shaft in our legal system.

Why do you make that assumption?

You have it backwards, I know that deep pockets and good lawyers equals acquittal or at least a much lighter sentence if you can even get a DA to bring a case to trial. If you still don't get the thrust of my comments I suggest rolling on over to anther thread that is a little less complicated for you.

So I think your point is the Rule of Law is utterly corrupt. Our legal system is corrupt. And the ends justify the means. Got it.

Not always but sometimes. It is a freedom loving human's natural right to defy unjust laws or to seek justice for an unaccountable and the untouchable ruling elite. The American legal system is terribly corrupt where our deliberate failure at equal protection is a world-wide joke.

 

[Katzndogz]

The Rule of Law means that no one is above the law. The law applies to everyone equally.

If you object to wealthy people being able to hire better lawyers, that is a consequence of freedom. The wealthy also hire better and more talented doctors, artists, architects. They buy better cars and wear warmer coats. If fairness and justice are mutually exclusive so is equality and freedom. Read Harrison Burgeron to understand what enforced equality means.

 

[occupied]

The Rule of Law means that no one is above the law. The law applies to everyone equally.

If you object to wealthy people being able to hire better lawyers, that is a consequence of freedom. The wealthy also hire better and more talented doctors, artists, architects. They buy better cars and wear warmer coats. If fairness and justice are mutually exclusive so is equality and freedom. Read Harrison Burgeron to understand what enforced equality means.

Had to look it up and I have read it many years ago, I fail to see how an absurdist story on the perils of social engineering justifies the wealthy being increasingly untouchable by the law especially when it comes to "white collar crime" (which is itself an absurd distinction in the law). Crime is crime, right?

 

[WelfareQueen]

You have it backwards, I know that deep pockets and good lawyers equals acquittal or at least a much lighter sentence if you can even get a DA to bring a case to trial. If you still don't get the thrust of my comments I suggest rolling on over to anther thread that is a little less complicated for you.

So I think your point is the Rule of Law is utterly corrupt. Our legal system is corrupt. And the ends justify the means. Got it.

Not always but sometimes. It is a freedom loving human's natural right to defy unjust laws or to seek justice for an unaccountable and the untouchable ruling elite. The American legal system is terribly corrupt where our deliberate failure at equal protection is a world-wide joke.

You have a very sad worldview. Just my opinion. You want absolute fairness. It does not exist. You want absolute equality. Yet, everything about the very nature of humanity is unequal. The things you want are pie-in-the-sky. I live in the real world. I believe our Rule of Law is flawed, but I know of none better. You know of nothing better either, but you will not admit it. What you want does not exist. We are not robots. Some people are stupid, and lazy, and evil. Some people are exceptional. No amount of liberal social engineering can change the differences between people.

 

[occupied]

So I think your point is the Rule of Law is utterly corrupt. Our legal system is corrupt. And the ends justify the means. Got it.

Not always but sometimes. It is a freedom loving human's natural right to defy unjust laws or to seek justice for an unaccountable and the untouchable ruling elite. The American legal system is terribly corrupt where our deliberate failure at equal protection is a world-wide joke.

You have a very sad worldview. Just my opinion. You want absolute fairness. It does not exist. You want absolute equality. Yet, everything about the very nature of humanity is unequal. The things you want are pie-in-the-sky. I live in the real world. I believe our Rule of Law is flawed, but I know of none better. You know of nothing better either, but you will not admit it. What you want does not exist. We are not robots. Some people are stupid, and lazy, and evil. Some people are exceptional. No amount of liberal social engineering can change the differences between people.

We are not better, not in the legal class equity department, not by a long shot.

 

[Katzndogz]

The Rule of Law means that no one is above the law. The law applies to everyone equally.

If you object to wealthy people being able to hire better lawyers, that is a consequence of freedom. The wealthy also hire better and more talented doctors, artists, architects. They buy better cars and wear warmer coats. If fairness and justice are mutually exclusive so is equality and freedom. Read Harrison Burgeron to understand what enforced equality means.

Had to look it up and I have read it many years ago, I fail to see how an absurdist story on the perils of social engineering justifies the wealthy being increasingly untouchable by the law especially when it comes to "white collar crime" (which is itself an absurd distinction in the law). Crime is crime, right?

Crime is crime. Some lawyers by virtue of being brilliant, talented and creative will sell their abilities to people who can pay top dollar for those abilites. They get acquitted. The way to prevent the rich from being acquitted is to equalize the lawyers so that one lawyer is not any more brilliant, talented or creative than any other lawyer. Maybe they can wear helmets that emit a loud noise.and keep them from thinking too much.

 

[georgephillip]

In many cases the rule of law is nothing but an enabler of tyranny. Bureaucrats and police enforce bad laws all the damned time and are quick to say they are "only following orders" or "doing their job". The rule of law is the bedrock of a free society or the chains that bind an oppressive one, there is no inherent virtue in the law, only protection of the status-quo and the elite, any virtue is found when the people successfully get laws passed to protect them from the lawgivers and law enforcers.

During my childhood in the 1950s and '60s I remember hearing regular news reports of Jim Crow laws being used to discriminate against non-Whites in states like Alabama and Florida. Legislators, Executives, and the courts have to devise and administer laws impartially if they want the population to pay attention. That seems unlikely as long as money influences all three branches of US government to the extent it does today.

All Law comes from We the People. Are We the People perfect? Have you ever met a perfectly impartial human being?

You are asking for something that does not exist. No Law has ever been administered perfectly. My question for you is the same as the poster above. If you do not like this system of Government, which one would you prefer?

A system with a wall of separation between private wealth and government where the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced in accessible, fair, and efficient manners and applied equally to all.

 

[Kosh]

The Rule of Law means that no one is above the law. The law applies to everyone equally.

If you object to wealthy people being able to hire better lawyers, that is a consequence of freedom. The wealthy also hire better and more talented doctors, artists, architects. They buy better cars and wear warmer coats. If fairness and justice are mutually exclusive so is equality and freedom. Read Harrison Burgeron to understand what enforced equality means.

However when the law makers are exempt from the laws is when you run into problems.

 

[Pennywise]

The rule of law is not supposed to be subject to the whims of men in power, so in theory it would mean the rules stay the same, all the time, regardless of who we elect.

But it's not been happening for over a century.

 

[Pennywise]

The Rule of Law means that no one is above the law. The law applies to everyone equally.

If you object to wealthy people being able to hire better lawyers, that is a consequence of freedom. The wealthy also hire better and more talented doctors, artists, architects. They buy better cars and wear warmer coats. If fairness and justice are mutually exclusive so is equality and freedom. Read Harrison Burgeron to understand what enforced equality means.

However when the law makers are exempt from the laws is when you run into problems.

Which is how it's been for generations. The only things stopping an armed overthrow of the government are apathy and ignorance.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The rule of law is the cornerstone of the Republic, whereby the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

The rule law means one’s rights are not determined by majority rule, nor does one forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his jurisdiction of residence, and one retains the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in the Federal courts, where laws enacted by men offensive to the Constitution are invalidated by the courts.

The rule of law means that the Federal Constitution, acts of Congress, and the rulings of Federal courts are supreme, and acts of Congress presumed Constitutional until such time as a Federal court rules otherwise in accordance with current Constitutional case law.

 

[georgephillip]

In 500 words or less, express why the "Rule of Law" is an important concept in American Society.

In theory the "Rule of Law" should serve as a constitutional foundation supporting a legal framework where no entity, including government, is above the law; where laws protect fundamental rights; where justice is equally accessible to all, and universal rights make the resulting society prosperous and fair to all.

Why do you ask?

Society is never supposed to be fair. Fairnesd is the antithesis of justice. It's justice for all not fairness for all.

How are you distinguishing fairness from justice?
Is not fairness a 'conception' of justice?
Can society ever be just without being fair?

 

[Katzndogz]

In theory the "Rule of Law" should serve as a constitutional foundation supporting a legal framework where no entity, including government, is above the law; where laws protect fundamental rights; where justice is equally accessible to all, and universal rights make the resulting society prosperous and fair to all.

Why do you ask?

Society is never supposed to be fair. Fairnesd is the antithesis of justice. It's justice for all not fairness for all.

How are you distinguishing fairness from justice?
Is not fairness a 'conception' of justice?
Can society ever be just without being fair?

Fairness requires the elimination of justice.

A just decision may not be fair in the slightest.

 

[georgephillip]

Society is never supposed to be fair. Fairnesd is the antithesis of justice. It's justice for all not fairness for all.

How are you distinguishing fairness from justice?
Is not fairness a 'conception' of justice?
Can society ever be just without being fair?

Fairness requires the elimination of justice.

A just decision may not be fair in the slightest.

If it's true that less than ten percent of children in the UK attend private schools and these children occupy about half of the places at Oxford and Cambridge, is this condition unfair or unjust?

 

[dblack]

In 500 words or less, express why the "Rule of Law" is an important concept in American Society.

I think you'll find many people here don't really understand "Rule of Law". They misconstrue the concept to be an affirmation of authority or somesuch. To wit:

In many cases the rule of law is nothing but an enabler of tyranny. Bureaucrats and police enforce bad laws all the damned time and are quick to say they are "only following orders" or "doing their job". The rule of law is the bedrock of a free society or the chains that bind an oppressive one, there is no inherent virtue in the law, only protection of the status-quo and the elite, any virtue is found when the people successfully get laws passed to protect them from the lawgivers and law enforcers.

The law is not enforced fairly across the various socioeconomic lines in our society, we all know it for a fact. We all know that a good lawyer makes all the difference. We all know that white collar crime is punished much more lightly than regular old crime. We are all aware that the law can protect criminality and punish righteousness. In short, I have no special reverence for the law or the officers who enforce it as they are as flawed and fallible as humanity itself and all too often is used as a weapon against us rather than the shield that protects us from chaos.

occupied,

Rule of law is an egalitarian concept that actually stands in opposition to the kind of elitism you're railing about. Seriously, read a little more on the topic. I suspect you'll be surprised.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Not always but sometimes. It is a freedom loving human's natural right to defy unjust laws or to seek justice for an unaccountable and the untouchable ruling elite. The American legal system is terribly corrupt where our deliberate failure at equal protection is a world-wide joke.

You have a very sad worldview. Just my opinion. You want absolute fairness. It does not exist. You want absolute equality. Yet, everything about the very nature of humanity is unequal. The things you want are pie-in-the-sky. I live in the real world. I believe our Rule of Law is flawed, but I know of none better. You know of nothing better either, but you will not admit it. What you want does not exist. We are not robots. Some people are stupid, and lazy, and evil. Some people are exceptional. No amount of liberal social engineering can change the differences between people.

We are not better, not in the legal class equity department, not by a long shot.

Compared to who?

 

[WelfareQueen]

During my childhood in the 1950s and '60s I remember hearing regular news reports of Jim Crow laws being used to discriminate against non-Whites in states like Alabama and Florida. Legislators, Executives, and the courts have to devise and administer laws impartially if they want the population to pay attention. That seems unlikely as long as money influences all three branches of US government to the extent it does today.

All Law comes from We the People. Are We the People perfect? Have you ever met a perfectly impartial human being?

You are asking for something that does not exist. No Law has ever been administered perfectly. My question for you is the same as the poster above. If you do not like this system of Government, which one would you prefer?

A system with a wall of separation between private wealth and government where the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced in accessible, fair, and efficient manners and applied equally to all.

Personally, I want the tooth fairy to be real.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The rule of law is the cornerstone of the Republic, whereby the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

The rule law means one’s rights are not determined by majority rule, nor does one forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his jurisdiction of residence, and one retains the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in the Federal courts, where laws enacted by men offensive to the Constitution are invalidated by the courts.

The rule of law means that the Federal Constitution, acts of Congress, and the rulings of Federal courts are supreme, and acts of Congress presumed Constitutional until such time as a Federal court rules otherwise in accordance with current Constitutional case law.

Federal Courts have no power under the Constitution to invalidate any Law. That authority does not exist as it was never granted by We the People.

 

[occupied]

In 500 words or less, express why the "Rule of Law" is an important concept in American Society.

I think you'll find many people here don't really understand "Rule of Law". They misconstrue the concept to be an affirmation of authority or somesuch. To wit:

In many cases the rule of law is nothing but an enabler of tyranny. Bureaucrats and police enforce bad laws all the damned time and are quick to say they are "only following orders" or "doing their job". The rule of law is the bedrock of a free society or the chains that bind an oppressive one, there is no inherent virtue in the law, only protection of the status-quo and the elite, any virtue is found when the people successfully get laws passed to protect them from the lawgivers and law enforcers.

The law is not enforced fairly across the various socioeconomic lines in our society, we all know it for a fact. We all know that a good lawyer makes all the difference. We all know that white collar crime is punished much more lightly than regular old crime. We are all aware that the law can protect criminality and punish righteousness. In short, I have no special reverence for the law or the officers who enforce it as they are as flawed and fallible as humanity itself and all too often is used as a weapon against us rather than the shield that protects us from chaos.

occupied,

Rule of law is an egalitarian concept that actually stands in opposition to the kind of elitism you're railing about. Seriously, read a little more on the topic. I suspect you'll be surprised.

Sorry, for taking a legal philosophy we supposedly treasure and trying to show just how badly we are failing at the reality. Carry on with your theoretical discussion.

 

[Darkwind]

In 500 words or less, express why the "Rule of Law" is an important concept in American Society.

I think you'll find many people here don't really understand "Rule of Law". They misconstrue the concept to be an affirmation of authority or somesuch. To wit:

In many cases the rule of law is nothing but an enabler of tyranny. Bureaucrats and police enforce bad laws all the damned time and are quick to say they are "only following orders" or "doing their job". The rule of law is the bedrock of a free society or the chains that bind an oppressive one, there is no inherent virtue in the law, only protection of the status-quo and the elite, any virtue is found when the people successfully get laws passed to protect them from the lawgivers and law enforcers.

The law is not enforced fairly across the various socioeconomic lines in our society, we all know it for a fact. We all know that a good lawyer makes all the difference. We all know that white collar crime is punished much more lightly than regular old crime. We are all aware that the law can protect criminality and punish righteousness. In short, I have no special reverence for the law or the officers who enforce it as they are as flawed and fallible as humanity itself and all too often is used as a weapon against us rather than the shield that protects us from chaos.

occupied,

Rule of law is an egalitarian concept that actually stands in opposition to the kind of elitism you're railing about. Seriously, read a little more on the topic. I suspect you'll be surprised.

Yes, I know. I have been watching occupied's conversation and frankly, I am not surprised by it. However, the conversation has not gone as poorly as I thought it would. I'm still waiting on a few others to chime in. The 'usual' suspects, as it were.