Saturday, January 16, 2010

Return of the Rule of Law

Rule of law, according to a Wikipedia entry is …
also called supremacy of law, means that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. Whether governor or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law. … The predominant view is that the concept of "rule of law" per se says nothing about the "justness" of the laws themselves, but simply how the legal system operates.[6][7]  As a consequence of this, a very undemocratic nation or one without respect for human rights can exist with a "rule of law"—a situation that may be occurring in several modern dictatorships. The "rule of law" or Rechtsstaat may be a necessary condition for democracy, but it is not a sufficient condition.[8]  … Aristotle endorsed the rule of law, writing that "law should govern", and those in power should be "servants of the laws."[10]  … In Islamic jurisprudence rule of law was formulated before the twelfth century, so that no official could claim to be above the law, not even the caliph.[12] However, this was not a reference to secular law, but to Islamic religious law in the form of Sharia law. In 1215 AD, a similar development occurred in England: King John placed himself and England's future sovereigns and magistrates at least partially within the rule of law, by signing Magna Carta.[13]  In 1776, the notion that no one is above the law was popular during the founding of the United States, for example Thomas Paine wrote in his pamphlet Common Sense "that in America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."[15] In 1780, John Adams enshrined this principle in the Massachusetts Constitution by seeking to establish "a government of laws and not of men."[16]

The basic concept of the Constitution was to define what powers the three branches of government were authorized to wield and the three branches operated under that system based upon the check and balance system, called separation of powers. If any or all of those branches of government usurp those laws than they are deemed unconstitutional and the people should take action through their power of free election to replace those individuals that undermine the contract of the US Constitution and its amendments, the Bill of Rights, which the latter being rules of government that guarantees liberties established in the creation of the nation known as the United States of America. No state of the Union should usurp or transgress the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the People, for although they have state rights, they are bound in agreement as a state of the Union to uphold the Bill of Rights; thus any state that counters the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, for example, is deemed unlawful and the US Supreme Court must rule against that transgression of constitutional law. It is the prescribed task of the justices, it is the reason for the establishment of that part of the separation of powers. 
All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold theConstitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader.[22] At the same time, the federal government does have considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutional rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion,[23] and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion.
Scholars continue to debate whether the U.S. Constitution adopted a particular interpretation of the "rule of law", and if so, which one. For example, Law Professor John Harrison asserts that the word "law" in the Constitution is simply defined as that which is legally binding, rather than being "defined by formal or substantive criteria", and therefore judges do not have discretion to decide that laws fail to satisfy such unwritten and vague criteria.[24] Law Professor Frederick Mark Gedicks disagrees, writing that Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that an unjust law was not really a law at all.[25]

James Wilson said during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 that, "Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect." George Mason agreed that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as judges to give it a free course."[26]

Scott Ristsema wrote in May of 2005, Rule of Law vs. Rule of Men at Propaganda Matrix, an article that describes what the Founding Fathers had achieved in designing and instituting the US Constitution as part of the rule of law system:
Any and every state can be categorized into either rule of law governments or rule of men governments. History has proven that any nation founded upon the shifting sands of the whim of men will always degenerate into oligarchy and tyranny. However, a nation of virtuous, educated people, which is founded upon and holds to the bedrock of a rule of law system will maintain prosperity and freedom despite the natural occurrences and challenges of history. ...our nation has been mistakenly led away from a rule of law system toward something that was not intended by our Founding Fathers. … According to our Founding Fathers, democracies were as dangerous as any form of government. Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as “three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch,” and explained that true liberty is “a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” In sum, any rule of man system, whether mob rule or rule by the elites, is destined for failure. Liberty and property will not be protected under such systems, and the nation will ultimately suffer under tyranny. … In a rule of law system, the nation possesses a set of guidelines usually in a constitution, which sets the terms for governing. Only according to those blueprints for governing, then, can any men write and execute additional laws. The constitution is the law of the land, and everything else must be measured up against it. A constitutional republic is such a form of government. The constitution is written to assign tasks to the various branches of government and to assure the God-granted liberty and property rights of every citizen. Then, representatives of the people govern according to the constitutional limits of power with a constant concern for individual liberty and constitutional integrity. … The biggest danger in a democracy is that the very things that government is instituted to protect (liberty and property) are in constant danger to the whim of the majority. In a democracy, when a crisis occurs (whether real or manufactured), the majority calls for government solutions. Then, when politicians answer that call and government grows in size and influence over peoples’ lives, there is an equal and opposite decrease in the amount of liberty and property maintained by the people. 20th century American history shows this process in action. … The only alternative for citizens who want to keep their liberty and property unmolested by majorities or oligarchs is the constitutional republic rule of law system. Our government was intended to be such a system. The Federal Government has a job description laid out clearly and concisely in a few-pages-long document. And, in case we didn’t catch it on the first read through the Constitution, the 10th Amendment reminds us that any powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or the people.  … Once upon a time in America, citizens and politicians alike had a constant concern for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights; laws were written and executed according to its mandates. Those were days when government was limited in its function because the politicians knew that their job description was limited indeed by the expressed powers of the Constitution itself. Those were the days before the “elastic clause” had been stretched to the moon and back. And, those were days when the liberties of the citizens were top priority. Today, we would do well to remember that the law of the land ought to rule and that people (politicians or majority opinion) can only act according to that rule of law. If we continue to move simultaneously toward democracy and oligarchy we will be disappointed to see that our future belongs to tyranny. Some day each ignorant citizen will wake up to these realities and will lament, as Woodrow Wilson did years after the creation of the Federal Reserve System, “I have unwillingly ruined my government.”

Just as Woodrow Wilson unwillingly helped to ruin government, so do citizens of today do so willingly or unwillingly and hold their loyalty to political parties rather than the US Constitution and the foundations of principles of rules that protect liberties and guarantee the freedoms in the Bill of Rights, amendments to the US Constitution. However, those liberties cannot be protected when the People of any free nation do not carefully guard those rules, as the Founders forewarned.
The characters of men and women we have voted to operate our government for us have no respect toward the Constitution and its limitation of powers and government and only use or abide by any constitutional law when it is to their advantage or can be construed (flexible constitution principle) to fit their political ideology and agenda. They hold themselves above the rule of law and the people have willingly sold their rights for the promise of personal securities and the concept of Utopia by allowing government to control personal lives rather than freedom of individuality and choice being the factors of the rule of law.

The issues of illegal immigration, for example, demonstrates that our government, those that were trusted by voters to operate it on our behalf, that our leadership do not follow even the laws that men and women of government have enacted but no longer enforce. Their solution in government failure of controlling masses of uninvited immigrants over our borders, living and working here without knowledge of their background, communicable diseases they may carry, employment available for the increase in population, or their reasons to seek to live amongst citizens, naturalized and born in America.
When an estimate of 20 million uninvited foreigners cross our borders with sanction of their government to do so – disregarding our laws, insisting that this continent known as North America belongs to them, and usurps laws, traditions and principles of our government and way of life – is this not an invasion? When citizens are against the act of invasion, is this racism? Is it not racism to call one's organization La Raza? Is it not racism to declare that one ethnic group of people should claim the North American continent as their own? America is a melting pot, people of diversity - but America did not become great because of diversity, it became great from its unity and immigrants swearing allegiance and loyalty to America and its constitutional principles of law. Isn't it a convenient phenomenon that certain people who advocate rights of a specific race over the rights of other ethnic people who are Americans, use the guilt of racism upon those who object? Is this not ultimate hypocrisy?

Yet, sheeple of the progressive socialistssociocratsDemocrats, try to lay guilt upon those who insist upon the law being enforced with an outcry of racism; insisting that those against illegal immigrants are also against legal immigrants. Immigration laws are there for ALL immigrants, what makes Mexicans believe they are above the law? Racism and propaganda fed them by their corrupt government - their own sense of racism - which they declare Americans are guilty of.
These invaders go along with the tactics of divide and conquer that politicians use to establish and maintain their unlawful powers because it fits their purpose. This does not mean that every illegal immigrant is an evil person and nor just seeking a better life, but the gist of their arguments that they have the right to break American laws of immigration based upon the propaganda taught them by the government of their original homeland. In this case it is Mexico, which does not mean that Mexicans make up all of the people entering the United States illegally, but it is the majority and the only people whose government sanctions their illegal activity.
How do those we elected to govern react to this issue? They do not conceive a plan to enforce the law, instead they seek legislation that will change the law, placed for good and obvious reasons, provide amnesty to a people who are guilty of not just breaking our laws of immigration, but using fraudulent identification as well.  
Politicians are for amnesty for selfish reasons. Illegal immigrants granted amnesty become citizens that become a voting base that furthers their power and the power of the political organization they belong to and hold allegiance to – not the US Constitution they swore upon taking office to uphold and protect.
Just as Europe has been invaded by subversive immigrants who have not immigrated for reasons of a better life from which they came and living with more freedom, but are there to change the government structure of the countries that kindly welcomed them, and fulfilling the agenda of Islamic extremist fascist that mandates that theocracy under Sharia law will be the ruling entity worldwide.

The world body organization called the United Nations has also been usurped and infiltrated by like-minded individuals representing the very entities that free republics are against. The United Nations must reform or perform its dealings elsewhere and America dissolve its membership until they either reform or end the charade and their agenda for a New World Order.
We have and are ignoring this threat against a free republic here in America as well as Europe for various reasons and have actually aided those usurpers in their endeavors to attain their agenda. As Woodrow Wilson stated, unwillingly conceding to those who undermine the rule of law, following those who willingly, for their own selfish reasons, to undermine our Jeffersonian republic.
In America, its citizens have a task of a large scale reformation in order to bring back the balance of power that the US Constitution directs. The task will not be easy. Education is important, as Thomas Jefferson emphasized, but citizens have allowed the control of central government to oversee the importance of education and students have been taught not that which was established by founders of our nation, but instead the ideologies of the government that it is more important than the people – even beyond the rule of law. Citizens must seek the knowledge of the founders and apply it to return America back to the Jeffersonian republic for which it was formed, not under the principles and ideology of the Communist Manifesto.
In order to do that voters must seek individuals, not necessarily within the confines of the two traditional political entities, Democrats and Republicans, but to those who not only understand those principles established and the rule of law – but applying it, and actions and policies that benefit Americans.
Thus, the American society must reform itself and seek out true reformers who abide by the Constitution in its limitation of powers and the Bill of Rights that guarantees the freedom and liberties prescribed by the rule of law.

The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.

Noah Webster wrote:
Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state.

The 10th Amendment is plainly presented:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

James Madison clearly limits central government established in the Constitution in Federalist No. 45:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

Mark Alexander, editor and founder of Patriot Post, wrote in his treatise The Rule of Law, Part 1 and Part 2:
Perhaps with an eye toward such a future, George Washington advised, "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all." But by the 1980s, adulteration of our Constitution had become so commonplace that liberal Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall was lecturing on "The Constitution: A Living Document," in defense of interpretation on based on contemporaneous moral, political, and cultural circumstances. More recently, Justice Antonin Scalia said of the "living constitution": "[There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things." … On the political consequences of a "living constitution," Justice Scalia concludes plainly, "If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. ... As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically."
President Obama did not originate the practice of breaking of the rule of law and the transgression of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, nor did the US Congress; however, this administration is the fulcrum of the wielding power of government over the People and the reign of unconstitutionality from the central government down to the local city council must once and for all be put in its place By the People – or the government will no longer be For the People.
It is the People who need to fix it through their remaining power to vote, and before that right to vote is totally usurped by the media and those who transgress the rule of law the People, citizens, must use that power wisely. 

Any congressional legislation that does not adhere to the Constitution of the United States is not really a law - but an unlawful mandate by an unconstitutional governing body.
It is time for the Reformation Age of America to become the role model nation it once was.

Join the reformation movement - vote for Constitutionalist candidates.


  1. Brilliant !

    "Join the reformation movement - vote for Constitutionalist candidates."

    Shout it form every rooftop !

  2. Brilliant !

    "Join the reformation movement - vote for Constitutionalist candidates."

    Shout it form every rooftop !