James,

Thank you for the excellent response.  You obviously have better
communication skills than I.

You said

The rule of law is "explicit and public statement of all laws and
regulations that the citizenry are subject to; open discourse on the
formulation and adoption of such laws and regulations;"

I said

"All the laws are known in advance"

Have you ever heard of the "know your customer" law which the government
keeps trying to secretly pass?

Sir Henry Maine, probably the greatest legal historian, said, "The
greatest movement of progressive societies has hitherto been a movement
from status to contract." In non-progressive societies, rule of law is
absent. Laws are not general. They're applied according to a person's
status or group membership. There's rule not by legis, the Latin word
for law, but by privileges, the Latin term for private law.

Let's look at our country and ask whether we live under rule of law.
Just about every law that Congress enacts violates all of the
requirements for rule of law. How do we determine violations of rule of
law? It's easy.

See if the law applies to particular Americans as opposed to all
Americans. See if the law exempts public officials from its application.
See if the law is known in advance. See if the law takes action against
a person who has taken no aggressive action against another.

If you conduct such a test, you will conclude that it is virtually
impossible to find a single act of Congress that adheres to the
principles of the rule of law. That's the very reason lobbyists descend
upon Washington and cough up the big campaign bucks. They want Congress
to use its law-making power to grant them special privileges. But every
indication I see, privilege granting is precisely what most Americans
want, though they might disagree on who gets what privilege.

Most Americans have no inkling of what rule of law means. We think it
means obedience to whatever laws Congress enacts and the president
signs. That's a tragedy.

However, I do agree with you

>>" The higher the expectations of the public then the closer to
perfection the application of the Rule of Law will attain. "

Most people seem to believe we live in a democracy, which is not true.
Our government is a Republic; hence we are not subjected to the tyranny
of the majority.

However we do seem to be subject to the tyranny of apathy.

Thank you for your thoughts.



Craig M. Lalley


-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of James B. Byrne
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 10:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [HP3000-L] OT: Rule of Law

On 13 Dec 2001, at 11:30, Craig M. Lalley wrote:

> Who here believes that our country uses the "rule of law"?
>

Virtually every Western European nation including the North
American States, Australia, New Zealand, and a good portion of
the rest of the world uses the Rule of Law.

> Who here even knows what "rule of law" means?
>

The Rule of Law is constraint of public officials by statute; explicit
and public statement of all laws and regulations that the citizenry
are subject to; open discourse on the formulation and adoption of
such laws and regulations; equal and open access to an impartial
adjudicator when accused of violation of those laws and
regulations; and consistent and fair due process for all accused of
crimes.  The purpose of which is to create within the citizenry a
high degree of trust in the political and legal workings of their state
and thereby forestall recourse to personal vengeance and the
violence and social instability which accompany such private
actions.

> The "rule of law" means two things;

No, it means one thing.  Trust in ones fellow citizens to do the right
thing for all.

The Rule of Law does not prevent criminal acts or private 'justice', it
only marginalizes them.  The Rule of Law does not guarantee
perfection in form or execution, it is impossible to for any system
involving mortals to be perfect.  The power of great wealth distorts
all that it is applied against, including justice.  The object of the
rule of law is not to be perfect, only to mitigate against the
excesses of a few that can destroy a state built for the many.

Consider the examples of high-profile cases of criminal justice that
are widely held to reveal the fundamental hypocrisy of 'the Rule of
Law'.  Why are they so notorious? Is it not because our
expectation is different than the outcome?  Is this not a salutary
revelation that the rule of law is so widely esteemed that even
notational affronts to our sensibilities on the subject are met with
outrage?  Is this not the surest sign that we do indeed enjoy and
demand the rule of law from those whom we choose to govern?

The rule of law ultimately rests and depends solely on its subjects'
willingness to uphold and submit to it.  When sharp practice by
public officers in the courts or on the streets evoke howls of
outrage from those subjects then you can be sure that the rule of
law, however imperfect, is still working. The higher the expectations
of the public then the closer to perfection the application of the
Rule of Law will attain.  To demean its value because it does not
meet a single narrowly defined view of performance is to reduce its
protection for everyone.  Cynicism is the enemy of justice.

Regards,
Jim
---     e-mail is NOT a secure channel
James B. Byrne                mailto:[log in to unmask]
Harte & Lyne Limited          http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive              vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario             fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada  L8E 3C3

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *