TPN—Judson Phillips: The end of the rule of law in America

January 3, 2014

One of the things that separates America from most of the rest of the world is a concept called the rule of law.  Put simply, America is a nation of laws and they apply to everyone equally. 

In America, until now, it did not matter if you were rich or poor, man or woman, black, white, Hispanic, Asian or you came from a plant in the Star Trek universe, the rules applied to you.

Now we see something that effectively means the end of the rule of law in America.  Can anarchy be far behind?

What is this event that spells the end of the rule of law in America?

Find out here!

What Is The Penalty for Usurpation of Liberty?

I have to start with the assumption that readers of this article understand that a Republic will only be viable if the rule of law is preserved. There are many cases confirming that the rule of law has been replaced by the rule of man in the United States of America. The debate is over: we do not have the rule of law in our country. Or more correctly:  WE DO NOT HAVE THE RULE OF LAW IN THEIR COUNTY

Today the pResident revised the Affordable Care Act arbitrarily by allowing the people to keep their current health care insurance policy for another year. The Constitution does not grant him this authority. So the question becomes who has given him dictatorial powers if not the political class in Washington, D.C.? Which proves that this is no longer our country.

 

CONTINUE READING:  http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/what-is-the-penalty-for-usurpation-of-liberty/

American Thinker: Is Obama Creating a Martial-law-ready Military?

What kind of leader wants a military more loyal to himself than to the rule of law?  And why?  These are two questions to ponder when considering the strange happenings in the armed forces since Barack Obama took office.  Let’s start with a hypothetical. Let’s say you were a hard-left-wing commander in chief who wanted the military firmly in your corner. You’d certainly note that our armed forces have been a bastion of conservatism and Christian faith, and you’d know that its members generally weren’t very fond of you. So how would you go about changing this?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/is_obama_creating_a_martial-law-ready_military.html

Where is the Rule of Law?--Canada Free Press

“A lie can go half way around the world before truth can even put its pants on.” – Mark Twain

Where are common sense, logic, critical thinking, belief in God, accountability, and the Rule of Law? Have they been replaced by the Fabians’ Social Justice Doctrine, controlled chaos, endless corruption, good is bad, evil is good, mindless propaganda, and political correctness? 

The Rule of Law is the cornerstone of our Republic and, without the Rule of Law, there is tyranny. Sen. Rand Paul wondered about the Rule of Law on the floor of the Senate: “Either we’re a nation of laws or not.” He continued, “If we ignored our own laws, are we in any position to preach to the rest of the world about democracy and the Rule of Law?” (C-SPAN radio 7/31/13)

The Rule of Law is necessary for freedom, justice, and equality to prevail, without it we are ruled by a government of men and women who make arbitrary decisions on a whim. When the Rule of Law is not respected, nobody is truly safe from government encroachment, intrusion, and abuse.

When ICE agents were ordered by DACA directive to violate federal law in non-deportation policies because of lack of jurisdiction, the ICE agents’ lawyer said, “There has to be a forum in which the rule of law can be restored.” Kris W. Kobach, the lawyer for the ICE union continued, “This is without question a lawless amnesty being imposed upon America. All Americans, regardless of how they feel about the amnesty, should be concerned when a president can flagrantly ignore the law and violate the Constitution.” 

Has this administration followed the Rule of Law or have they deliberately ignored it? Is this the new norm?

In the tsunami of executive orders and laws passed against the wishes of the majority of the American people, was it legal to give Congress and its staffers a 75% subsidy to insulate them from the expensive and harmful effects ofObamacare?

Was it legal to give exemptions from the unaffordable Affordable Care Act to special groups and not enforce the law across the board in a timely manner, as it was passed?

CONTINUED:  Where is the Rule of Law?

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

The People’s Right to Choose and Change Government

Lloyd Phillips, TheOakInitiative.org.
July 4, 2012

The Declaration of Independence was a magnificent presentation of the grievances of the American Colonies against an overreaching and overbearing government. It also laid out in spectacular wording for the first time the basic principles of freedom and liberty.



The preamble says in part “…to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”


Later, when our forefathers created the U.S. Constitution, they referred to these principles in the opening line, which is “We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Understanding the principles set forth in The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution they provided had within it the means by which the people could change, alter, and amend the Constitution as they saw the need. In fact, in order to get the document passed by the two-thirds majority of states required to adopt the Constitution, the Federalists had to promise the Anti-Federalists that they would immediately amend a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Without this promise, it is doubtful that the Constitution would have ever received the votes necessary to become the law of the land. These first ten amendments are our cherished “Bill of Rights.”

All state constitutions within the United States likewise present, for legal purposes, how the government will function and the limits on that government. Constitutions are enacted to limit the powers of government; laws are enacted to direct the actions of people. Each state constitution contains within it the means by which the people of that state may amend their constitution. The idea that constitutions are “living documents” rather than a legal document stems from Europe; it is based on the idea of “rule of men” rather than “rule of law.”


Every successful businessman knows that without clear and firm laws that can be counted upon, it would be impossible to conduct successful business. If the laws to do business were subject to the whim of a judge or magistrate, it would not be possible to make clear plans and investments, and therefore, the businesses and economy would suffer. This system always leads to corruption, confusion, and the advancement of poverty rather than the increase of prosperity for the majority of people. Our system is a legal system, not an evolving so-called “living” system based upon the whims and biases of judges and magistrates.

However, we are experiencing dangerous encroachments upon the rights of the people and their right to self government, including the right to choose their own form of governance and the ability to amend or abolish such laws and government.

The most dangerous threat against all Americans is currently in play in the State of California over the right to define marriage and dictate what the Government may and may not do to the people of that state. The people of California seem to know instinctively the dangers of redefining and destroying traditional marriage. They also know that they have the right, according to their constitution and the U.S. Constitution, to change laws and amend their constitution. In short, they know they have the right to choose their own government—or do they?

A short review of events is in order. In the year 2000, California voters overwhelmingly approved (61% of the voters to 39%) the passage of Proposition 22, which defined legal marriage in the State of California as between one man and one woman. This was done in response to judicial activism which was, and is, currently promoting marriage as between two people regardless of gender. While this strong showing of the electorate surprised many, it meant nothing to the courts of California who overruled the change to the California Family Code saying it was unconstitutional.


So the good citizens of California complied with the ruling of the courts and passed an amendment to their constitution through the passage of Proposition 8 in 2008. This amended the California Constitution to read “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This also passed by a strong margin of the electorate. However, in a double jeopardy ruling, United States District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned the amendment on grounds that it would be unconstitutional with a scathing anti-Christian rant as a ruling. His ruling has been upheld by a Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel. The panel also affirmed that they believed Judge Walker was not obligated to recuse himself from the case because he is a practicing homosexual. This decision is being appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Supreme Court case Marbury vs. Madison (1803) is considered by many jurists and legal scholars to be the most important ruling ever from the U.S. Supreme Court. In part, the ruling stated, “That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis, on which the whole American fabric has been erected . . . The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental.

And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme . . . they are designed to be permanent . . . The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.”

To sum it up, due to concern over judicial activism, the citizens of California acted to clarify for their state that marriage is between one man and one woman. Once legally placed into the family code, it was ruled unconstitutional by activist judges. Therefore, the citizens of California amended their constitution to constitutionally define marriage as between one man and one woman. This amendment to their constitution has now also been ruled unconstitutional. Is there any irony in a ruling that says an amendment to a constitution is unconstitutional?

CONTINUED:  http://wilsonncteaparty.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/the-peoples-right-to-choose-and-change-government/

Thanks A Lot Georgia, For Shredding Our Constitution

On Friday, February 3, 2012 the death knell of America the Beautiful tolled across the fifty states and around the world. An administrative judge in the state of Georgia rewrote the Constitution and ruled in favor of putative president Barack Hussein Obama declaring him a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to be on their state ballot.

Our rule of law is no more. Our Constitution is no more. Obama, Soros, state media, activist judges and all the ‘powers that be’ of a New World Order sealed our fate. The United States is a land of liberty no more.


When Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi released his shocking ruling we were stunned. This couldn’t possibly be true. On the eve of the hearing Obama’s lawyers had written a thinly- veiled threat letter to Brian Kemp, GA Secretary of State, demanding that Kemp stop Judge Malahi from moving forward with the three lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the state ballot. This letter followed another sent days earlier by Obama’s Atlanta attorney Michael Jablonski to Judge Malihi demanding he stop the January 26th hearing and advised the GA judge that Obama would not be attending anyway citing it would interfere with the president’s duties. Malihi replied quickly to the first letter: the hearing would go on. SOS Kemp responded within 2 hours of receiving his letter stating, “…if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

At the very least when Obama or his lawyers failed to show up in court a default judgement, earlier considered by the judge, should have denied Obama’s placement on the ballot. Not only did Malihi rule in favor of Obama he completely destroyed the credibility of the plaintiffs, their lawyers, witnesses and evidence that the judge found “unpersuasive.”

CONTINUED:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/thanks-a-lot-georgia-for-shredding-our-constitution/

THE PATRIOT POST—Alexander’s Essay: Gratitude for What? Sometimes we need reminding

"There is in every breast a sensibility to marks of honor, of favor, of esteem, and of confidence, which, apart from all considerations of interest, is some pledge for grateful and benevolent returns. Ingratitude is a common topic of declamation against human nature; and it must be confessed, that instances of it are but too infrequent and flagrant both in public and in private life. But the universal and extreme indignation, which it inspires, is itself a proof of the energy and prevalence of the contrary sentiment." --James Madison, 1778

Like many American Patriots, I get up early every morning prepared to do battle to sustain Liberty for this and future generations. On occasion, however, I experience battle fatigue, which can diminish my morale and stamina. Inevitably in those moments, something occurs that restores both my drive and my determination.

Patriots across the nation know that we are engaged in a never-ending campaign to defend Liberty from the relentless assaults of those who would replace Rule of Law with the rule of men.

Some battlefronts are colossal. Take, for instance, the national scheme of Democratic Socialism under the leadership of the Obama regime, which endeavors to collapse our economy and replace it with statist socialism. (In case you missed it, our nation closed the books on 2011 with a record national debt of $15.223 TRILLION. More significantly, total U.S. debt is now more than 100 percent of GDP -- an ominous threshold.)


Other battlefronts are smaller, such as the local assaults on the First and Second Amendments. Small they may be, but the Left is expanding any victories in those arenas, via Thomas Jefferson's "despotic branch," to undermine our Bill of Rights and most notably, Tenth Amendment Federalism.

CONTINUED:

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2012/01/05/gratitude-for-what/

The U. S. Constitution and Sharia Law

Throughout the history of this world there really have only been two kinds of law. We have given these systems of law very descriptive and easy names to remember. They are Rulers' Law and People's Law. Every legal system can fit under one of these two broad banners. Under Ruler's Law, the king or dictator makes the law. Under People's Law, the people make or accept the law by which they live. It is interesting that some of the most dominant kinds of legal systems have come about when it is claimed to emanate from God. Under Ruler's Law, if the ruler can make the people believe he has a divine right to rule, he can persuade the people to do about anything and the use of force becomes acceptable to many people if done in the name of God. Under People's Law, as was the case in Ancient Israel, when the people accepted Jehovah as their King and accepted His laws as their laws, it had a powerful persuasiveness to right actions. The major difference was that there was no use of force. Not even God would force a leader or laws on a people they did not willingly accept, because He respects the agency of man. Religion has been a powerful force throughout history in either types of law.


CONTINUE READING HERE:

http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/nov11nl.html

THE PATRIOT POST ALEXANDER’S ESSAYS: The Next American Revolution--What is the Authority for Rebellion?

(PUBLISHER'S WARNING: The following essay may cause heartburn and knee-jerk reactions, especially in those who are predisposed to "give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety." But as Benjamin Franklin concluded, they "deserve neither liberty nor safety." For such feeble souls, Samuel Adams advised, "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" For those who are not cast among that faint-hearted lot, please read on.)


READ THE ESSAY HERE:  http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/08/04/the-next-american-revolution/

American Thinker

Rule of Law in the Age of Obama


January 02, 2011


By Scott Strzelczyk

Recently, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the individual mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. While a significant ruling in context of expansive federal powers under the commerce clause, of paramount importance is the underlying fundamental principle of the Rule of Law.

The Rule of Law is often overlooked and misunderstood when constitutional issues arise. A general misconception is a law is constitutional if Congress passes a bill and the president signs the bill into law, or the Supreme Court of the United States upholds a laws constitutionality. Not only is this wrong, but it is inherently dangerous to our constitutional republic, limited government and federalism, and the protection of man's natural rights and liberty.

The Rule of Law is defined as follows: "Individuals, persons and government shall submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action by an individual or group of individuals" [i]. In other words, nobody is above the law, nor can anybody act outside the constraints established under the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is incorporated in the Constitution of the United States.

The Rule of Law embodies certain indispensable characteristics which are necessary and proper in a government of laws (as opposed to a government of men). Those indispensable characteristics are the supremacy of law and justice. The absence of either supremacy of law or justice represents a fatal flaw in our form of government.

Supremacy of Law

Supremacy of Law requires both citizens and government to be subject to known and standing laws. By subjugating government to a set of known and standing laws, the Rule of Law constrains government bureaucrats and political rulers' arbitrary power over the citizenry. Today, political expediency and ideology result in a myriad of laws subjugating citizens to political will, which ultimately violates the Rule of Law.

People conflate the supremacy clause, found in Article VI of the Constitution, with Supremacy of Law. Many people believe the supremacy clause states that the federal government is supreme in all matters of law. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Such wishful thinking is the rational basis used to usurp power otherwise not granted to the federal government in the Constitution. The key provision of the supremacy clause is "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof."

Limitations on arbitrary power were incorporated into the Constitution under Article I, Section VIII. This section enumerated the powers ceded by the several states to the federal government. The Constitution established a federal government with limited powers. The several states created the Constitution, ratified the Constitution, and are the ultimate authority required to amend the Constitution.

After years of despotic rule under the British Crown and fighting a war of independence, it is inconceivable that the framers would create and establish a system of government under the Constitution which granted unlimited power and authority to the federal government. For the federal government to be supreme in all matters of law raises the following questions:

Why did the framers labor to define and enumerate the powers ceded to Congress under Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution?

By default, all acts of Congress would be supreme, therefore rendering most of the Constitution meaningless. There would be absolutely no limits on congressional power and authority. Why would the colonies fight a war of independence to establish a new system of government capable of subjugating the people to laws under a new tyrant?

Supremacy of Law doesn't support any conclusion as to whether the federal government is supreme over state governments or vice-versa. The proper interpretation is that those powers reserved to the states and those powers delegated to the federal government must be adhered to because it is stated in the Constitution, and the Rule of Law embodies supremacy of law.

Likewise, the supremacy clause is applicable only to those powers ceded to the federal government. If Congress passes an act within the limited powers ceded to it, then the law is binding and supreme over any state law or state constitution. This is what "shall be made in Pursuance thereof" means. Otherwise, the law is not binding and, therefore, not supreme law.

Justice

Justice is another indispensable characteristic of the Rule of Law. In the state of nature, man possesses certain rights as a matter of being -- the right to associate, to contract, to self-defense, etc. These are referred to as natural rights. In the Declaration of Independence, natural rights are stated as certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness conferred upon man by his Creator. These natural rights cannot be conferred by man unto man. That is, government does not confer natural rights, nor can government deny or abridge natural rights. The Constitution protects man's natural rights and liberty from government.

In a state of nature, a formal justice system doesn't exist. One man steals property from another man, and the aggrieved man seeks retribution for his loss of property. The aggrieved man enacts his own form of justice to compensate for his loss. That retribution may be excessive or unjustly applied in the mind of a disinterested third party. For instance, a man steals food from another man. The aggrieved man seeks retribution and kills the man that stole from him. Most would conclude that the aggrieved man's action was excessively unjust.

One of the primary reasons man enters into civil society is the resolution of conflicts between individuals. To ensure that government treats citizens fairly when resolving conflicts, certain protections are necessary to preclude government's arbitrarily taking action against its citizens.

Personal liberty must be protected. That is, man must be safe and secure in knowing he cannot be arrested without cause, and his private belongings and things cannot be seized or searched without probable cause. Man must violate the law for the government to justify encroaching upon his personal liberty.

Lastly, due process under the law is paramount to the protection of personal liberty, natural rights, and private property. Laws regarding procedural and evidentiary rules, jury trials, and the presumption of innocence are necessary safeguards under the Rule of Law.

A quick glance at the constitutional amendments illustrates the importance of justice under the Rule of Law, particularly on the limitation of arbitrary and discretionary government powers. Amendments IV through VIII all deal with some aspect of justice. The fourteenth amendment is frequently referenced in regards to justice and due process under the law. Amendments I, II, IX, and X are restrictions on government infringing upon man's rights and liberty.

Coercive Government

Whenever government violates the Rule of Law, government becomes coercive. Regardless of the government's rationale, citizens' popular opinion, or intended outcomes, any government action which violates the Rule of Law is coercive, unconstitutional, and unjust. The Rule of Law and coercive government are of utmost concern to the survival of our constitutional republic.

In many cases, elected officials or government bureaucrats use humanitarian reasons to justify their actions. We are doing this for the children. We are doing this to protect you from some harm. We are compassionate and must help those who are disadvantaged. All are attempts to justify the use of arbitrary power to achieve political or ideological outcomes that often abridge individual rights, property rights, or liberty.

How does government usurp powers and act arbitrarily in violation of the Rule of Law?

First and foremost, the federal government usurps powers that were intended to be reserved by the states. Consider a traditional power like local police. If Congress were to pass a bill taking control of all local police powers, the president to sign the bill into law, and the Supreme Court to rule that the law is constitutional, then state powers would be usurped by the federal government [ii].

The Supreme Court has presumed powers not otherwise granted to it by the Constitution and established itself as the final and ultimate word on all constitutional matters. The framers did not intend to vest the Supreme Court with this ultimate authority. It is akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Furthermore, constitutional interpretation exacerbates the problem of authority, as it affords judges the opportunity to institute distributive and social justice rather than commutative and legal justice. The framers did not intend to vest nine people in black robes with the power to change the meaning of the Constitution [iii]. Only a properly ratified constitutional amendment can change the Constitution.

Congress established numerous federal agencies and programs administered by the executive branch. Legislation often grants agencies broad general powers to implement and regulate programs. Unelected government bureaucrats establish rules and regulations which are considered equivalent to statutory law. These rules and regulations may run afoul of the Constitution, be used to redistribute private property, take control of private industries, or further an administration's political ideology. Dozens of czars were appointed without the consent of the people. The Declaration of Independence states, "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Regulations are another method used by government to arbitrarily exercise power over the citizenry.

Those who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution are stating that they will uphold the Rule of Law.  In the next breath, the same people say the Constitution is a living and breathing document, the Constitution is stale and doesn't reflect modern realities, or the federal government has the power to do whatever it wants under the Constitution.

Expansive views and interpretations of the commerce clause, general welfare clause, necessary and proper clause, etc. are referenced by elected officials as their constitutional authority to enact legislation, institute rules and regulations, and usurp powers otherwise reserved to the states.

These are arguments of tyrants and ideologues. A person either reveres the Rule of Law or rejects the Rule of Law. There is no middle ground. There is no cafeteria plan where certain aspects of the Rule of Law can be followed or ignored as one pleases.

Those who revere the Rule of Law understand it is meant to constrain government against arbitrary use of power. Those who reject the Rule of Law use government power arbitrarily to constrain the people.

The founding fathers and framers revered the Rule of Law. The Tea Party and the 2010 elections are about the Rule of Law. The next two election cycles are critical to the country's future and the Rule of Law. Nothing less than our constitutional republic is at stake.

[i] Several definitions exist for the rule of law. The definition I chose for this article is here.

[ii] Federalism was established under the Constitution. All powers originated as states' powers, and certain limited powers were ceded to the federal government by the states. James Madison addresses the question of state and federal powers in Federalist 45. The second and third paragraphs from the end of the paper encapsulate the framers' thinking regarding state and federal powers.

[iii] The current Supreme Court has nine judges. This has varied over time from as few as six to as many as ten. The Supreme Court has remained at nine judges since 1869.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/rule_of_law_in_the_age_of_obam.html at January 02, 2011 - 05:51:25 PM CST