Obama’s Puerile Molestation of the Constitution is Gruesome & Exceptionally Dangerous

Americans Must Stand up to High Lawlessness, If We Are to Last as a Law & Order Nation (15 Reasons Why America Must Embrace Bible-Friendly Policy to Survive the 3rdMillennium) It has become painfully clear that Barack holds an al a carte theory of American law—to be taken piece by piece, but not by whole. For example, he clearly does not consider the Constitution binding, unless its’ mandates already fit into his plans. For this reason it is inevitable that when Obama taught “constitutional law” as anunpublished, non-professor instructor,  he would have used the theory of evolving “living law.” (see Teaching Law, Testing Ideas, Obama Stood Slightly Apart) Therefore, when we observe Barack as making legal decisions off the cuff, he uses the style of lex animata, or the living law. In effect, an elected office holder becomes the very embodiment of what the Founders fought against—much to their grave-turning horror. Without Rule of Law, Every Nation Must Degenerate into Default Personality Worship It is clearly a danger to the republic for any politician to flout the law, but especially for the commander in chief. This makes his actions wholly unpredictable. But what should be done? Many private discussions are now being held on whether Barack could be impeached for his unconstitutional lawlessness. This brief article examines the doctrine which built America and which apparently Barack does not accept—the Rule of Law. Historyteaches us that the leader who becomes lex animata, a law unto themselves, morphs into a tyrant who then subjugates his citizens into slavery. I. What is the Rule of Law? America has often been referred to as a land where the king was dethroned and law was put in his place. But what is the Rule of Law? The ancient Greeks, such as Aristotle, and the Romans understood that the law had to stand above any king. And, for example, Bernard Levinson finds the first constitution in ancient Israel—see The First Constitution: Rethinking the Origins of Rule of Law and Separation of Powers in Light of Deuteronomy. Over the centuries since, the common man has had to battle to have his side of arguments against the powerful heard and his property and rights defended. But it was not until the 17th century that the modern sense of the Rule of Law began to take root. Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661), a Scottish divinity professor and pastor penned the infamous Lex Rex as a biblical defense of the Rule of Law and the right to rebel against ungodly leaders. John Coffey, in his Politics, Religion and the British Revolutions: The Mind of Samuel Rutherford, Rutherford argued for a separation between the king and judges so that the supreme leader could not control the outcomes of cases. Judges were answerable to God, not kings. Law came only from God, and men were responsible to make their laws in conformity with God’s rules. This easy reference to the Natural Law was influential to later generations, including the Founders. A written constitution reflects such commitments, and Rutherford’s writings were a criticism against John Maxwell’s “The Sacred and Royal Prerogative of Christian Kings.” John Locke was also doing battle against the idea of unlimited government, as well. Locke’s First Treatise of Government is a criticism of Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha, which argues in support of the divine right of kings. Both men were establishing arguments for the Rule of Law. According to John Phillip Reid, in Rule of Law: The Jurisprudence of Liberty in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, the most impressive and effective version of the Rule of Law was birthed in the Anglo-American history of the common law. This was given its zenith by the Founders and Framers. Reid gives a general description of the Rule of Law: The first element in the makeup of the historical rule-of-law doctrine is the generalprinciple that “individuals should be governed by law rather than by the arbitrary will of others,” that is, of course, not by the arbitrary will and caprice of government officials but by law ruling over governor and governed alike. The British legal historian VA Dicey gives this definition: That “rule of law,” then, which forms a fundamental principle of the constitution, has three meanings, or may be regarded from three different points of view. It means, in the first place, the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power, and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the government. It means, again, equality before the law, or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary Law Courts; the “rule of law” in this sense excludes the idea of any exemption of officials or others from the duty of obedience to the law which governs other citizens. CONTINUED:  Obama’s Puerile Molestation of the Constitution is Gruesome & Exceptionally Dangerous