Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Resurrecting the Rule of Law
Recently I wrote a post decrying the fecklessness of conservatives, Republicans, and their constituents. We expended a great deal of energy in the comments figuring out how we could fight back against the Democrat party, re-build our reputations by challenging the lies and deceptions of the Left, and gain the respect and trust of the electorate. I think I have identified an additional strategy for this new agenda that we haven’t previously touched on. It’s called the rule of law.
The term “rule of law” has been bandied about quite a lot lately. Most people probably don’t know what it means, but it sounds important and official. The problem in these times is that rule of law is ignored when it is inconvenient, difficult, or an impediment to action. Yet at one time, rule of law was an important governing principle.
The American Bar Association explains the history of the rule of law, citing the Magna Carta and James Madison in The Federalist Paper No. 51. The rule of law in the Magna Carta states:
No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised [to remove a party wrongly from real property that is lawfully possessed] or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
Madison said, in part,
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. In framing a government, which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, an early leader of the Women’s Rights movement, said:
To make laws that man cannot and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt. It is very important in a republic, that the people should respect the laws, for if we throw them to the winds, what becomes of civil government?
I could quote many more sources that would speak to the importance of the rule of law for a civil society.
But today, we have grown to accept that the rule of law has taken a back seat to political agendas. The separation of powers, which was supposed to ensure that our system would provide checks and balances, has become a farce. Presidents are issuing a record number of questionable executive orders; the legislature pays little attention to its own members breaking laws, and lets departments make illegal rules with no oversight; and the judiciary repeatedly has legislated from the bench. Protests to these actions are primarily partisan and depend upon who is in office. It seems like no one is in charge; people make excuses, turn a blind eye, and when it’s their turn in office, they break the laws without fear of repercussions.
Just take a look at some of the most recent and egregious violations of the rule of law:
Hillary Clinton broke the law.
The EPA broke the law over its water rule.
James Comey broke federal law with his memo leak.
Eric Holder broke several federal laws.
Barack Obama violated the Constitution.
The IRS did not follow federal law.
This list is just the tip of the iceberg. We could also question the application of the rule of law to the issues of immigration and sanctuary cities. Everyone seems to shrug their shoulders in acquiescence to this reality.
I think it’s time to fight back, and championing the rehabilitation of the rule of law is an honorable and powerful way to begin. What does that mean?
- That we charge those listed above who have broken the law.
- That Republicans agree to call out illegal actions and insist that lawbreakers be charged in the future.
- That Republicans communicate to the public that they are making a commitment to follow the law and to make everyone accountable to it.
What are your thoughts about this endeavor?
What other people, agencies and actions should we target?
Published in Law
I think it is hopeless. The “right” people walk away from prosecution and ordinary people are persecuted. Nothing will be done to any of these people.
I love how that last article (CNN, natch) frames things as “IRS did not follow federal law”. How delightfully passive. Mistakes were made. Could have happened to anyone.
But if it “happened to” you or me, we would be said to have broken the law, and would be prosecuted.
Hillary was given a pass by the FBI because they said they couldn’t prove intent, regarding a law that, as I understand it, explicitly says lack of intent is not a defense.
I’d love to see the rule of law restored. My last post was about this very issue. I’m just not sure how to go about it. Congressional GOP leadership show no signs of taking meaningful steps to rectifying this — not surprising, since they benefit from the status quo, as well.
Agreed, Bryan. With one Caveat. The history of President Trump has not been written yet. He is the only hope that the malfeasance of the law breakers listed above will be prosecuted. It is a dim hope , but hope non the less.
Concerning Trumps attacks on his AG. I am of the opinion that it is a ploy to strengthen Jeff Sessions brand (even the left is defending the previous bigot now). If this is so. Is Trump strengthening Sessions brand to unleash him on the malfeasance of the last 8 years.
It is my hope.
I don’t share that hope. I think Sessions is Ned Stark, and Trump is pissed about it, but does not want to fire him. I don’t think there is anything behind the curtain, so to speak.
I guess I’m not at that stage yet, Bryan. It would only take a few Congressman to come together and decide to prosecute in conjunction with the DOJ. So I hope you’re wrong.
Sorry I missed our post, Terry. I guess I’m looking for ideas for how to light a fire on these folks. We’re supposedly in power–how do we fight for justice and the American Way??!
I know people like to characterize Sessions as a weak and inept person. I don’t believe that. I liked hearing that he’s addressing the leaks; if he can get moving on that and get some results, I hope a rivulet turn into a river!
Congress is adrift and blames the President. Jefferson must be rolling in his grave. Hamiliton must be as well. Congress is supposed to be the primary branch. Our King worship is very bad.
No kidding. They are going to have everyone angry at them, no matter how they vote on this darn health care. Too many self-serving men and women are trying to govern and are doing an outstanding job at not-governing.
Here’s something I’d like to see that might help a little in restoring the rule of law:
A constitutional amendment requiring that everyone in the federal government must abide by the same laws that the rest of the country are subject to. No more exceptions, where Congress gets exempted from Social Security and Obamacare. Make the insider trading laws applicable to Congress. Etc.
It’ll never happen, of course. Laws are for the little people.
Just spit-balling here, but what about some sort of extra-governmental body whose job is to enforce federal laws against the federal government. Maybe an agency that is funded and organized by the 50 states, with D.C. having no control over them, either for funding or oversight. Instead, the state governments appoint representatives / justices / whatever to serve a limited term. This body could prosecute crimes committed by bureaucrats, congress critters, etc., and also adjudicate civil suits involving the federal government — no more EPA adjudicating cases where it is itself a party.
Of course, this would require another Amendment.
I think we need to figure out how to get around their excuses–great idea, Terry!
This idea makes me a little uneasy, Terry. I love your creativity, though. Making another empowered governing body points to making government even bigger. But it’s a start–I like your thinking!
I just heard on Fox that the acting head of ICE, Thomas D Homan, is pointing out that sanctuary cities are aiding and abetting illegals. It is written in the law that you can’t do this! Maybe the DOJ can get behind this accusation and take action!
I also wonder if, rather than jumping on the “crucify Sessions bandwagon,” we might remember he’s smart and knowledgeable. If he gets some traction by prosecuting the leaks he’s pursuing, maybe he’ll go for even bigger stuff. Like Lois Lerner, John Koskinen, and even Eric Holder. I won’t give this one up!
I understand your concern, but my intent is that this body would have no power over the citizenry, only over the federal government — not to legislate, only to adjudicate laws and regulations passed by the existing structure, and only against organs of the federal government. Rather than trust D.C. to police itself, separate that power out.
I’m sure the devil would be in the details. But who knows? If a serious movement was began to institute something like this, maybe the FBI / DOJ / etc. would start doing their jobs in this area, in an attempt to forestall the effort.
If Sessions actually did such a thing, he’d win back a lot of good will. Speaking for myself, at least. I would still resent the civil forfeiture B.S., but having something good to balance it out would be most welcome.
I’m not holding my breath, though. He’s been a creature of the beltway for a long time. Will he really hold his compatriots accountable to the law? We’ll see, I suppose, assuming Trump doesn’t fire him or force him to resign.
I couldn’t agree more.
I think it’s great that you’re focusing on specific actions conservatives can take to further the conservative cause. Certainly, upholding the rule of law — following the law, and insisting that others do too or that they face the consequences for their lawlessness — is an essential step toward restoring civil society.
On the issue of past transgressions, I’ll avoid serious comment out of respect for those who want to take a hard line and who have little patience with anything short of that. My only observation is that political sideshows don’t serve us well, and any appearance of going after the previous administration legally risks the appearance of banana-republic stuff. And I’ve had enough banana-republic stuff.
As for your other suggestions:
I could not possibly agree more. Well said!
I can’t tell you how much I love this idea — and how deeply convinced I am that you must be consuming hallucinogenic pharmaceuticals to even imagine that such a complicated ploy was being unleashed from the Oval Office.
I could be wrong, of course. (But I kind of think not.)
I’m torn on this.
On the one hand, I agree with you.
One the other hand, if an administration won’t hold itself accountable, and future administrations can’t do so for fear of creating a political sideshow, doesn’t that risk a complete abandonment of the rule of law? No need to follow the law if your side won’t prosecute, and neither will the other.
There are a number of committees/groups/agencies who are playing judge and jury. I kind of like the idea of having an outside group taking a look at their “accusations” and having a more unbiased eye. Very interesting.
What irritates the daylights out of me, Hank, is that it won’t necessarily be the DOJ that creates the sideshow if past lawbreaking is attacked; it will be the media. I’m so aggravated at the power we keep giving them; I’d like to think there’s an honorable way to adjudicate, reminding the public in particular that it is about rule of law. And that we have to cave in because Obama’s administration didn’t do the work they should have done in holding their people accountable! G.r.r.r.r.r.r…..
I think I duplicated this in my comment below. Great minds, huh?
Yes. And, again, I’d like to avoid the sideshow.
But here’s something. We can educate people, draw attention to scandals, and decry the tawdry state our government has reached — without prosecuting past offenders. We could, for example, announce a mission to restore integrity to a corrupted government, and then relentlessly advertise the corruption of recent years.
This would draw attention to it in a way that no one can credibly condemn, without risking the appearance of a political vendetta — something for which Americans rightfully have no stomach.
Of course, I tend to be a think globally, act locally kind of guy, and so information campaigns appeal to me more than judicial activism. I haven’t any idea how to go about prosecuting people, but I have a pretty good idea how to talk to people about stuff, and how to present the many sins of the Obama years in a compelling light.
No one wants to hear that, not if it’s just a litany of complaints about past transgressions. But if it’s pitched proactively, as an effort to restore the integrity of government for everyone, then it’s just good civics and hard for the left to oppose. And that prepares the ground for serious public disgust and push-back the next time we get a grotesque abuse of executive power (say, five minutes into the next Democratic administration).
I get what you’re saying, Henry. I think if we take something that is incredibly egregious (take your pick), it will be hard for people to argue with it. My concern is that words without action–doing something about it–are just words. It will be taken as complaining, even from the best orators. But we can just disagree on this point.
@henryracette, I was talking to a dear friend today who is very skilled in the areas of communication and conflict. He likes the idea of training people who have the inclination to learn how to speak through differences. He asked me how many people in the world would I guess might at least have the innate talent to learn these skills. I didn’t want to venture a guess.
But I think you assume that people will be as talented as you are in expressing yourself in a productive way. I taught communication for 20 years, and I learned that very few people were even interested, never mind willing to learn, to speak artfully, especially under stress. I think that colors my perception about talking about difficult topics; few people do it well.
Another way of saying this–see my comment #26.
The problem here is getting the message through the media filter. We already know that, if a Republican does wrong, the headline is “Republican Caught in Scandal”, with most of the story dedicated to a litany of evidence, testimony, and hearsay that all show how guilty he is, and maybe a single paragraph at the end for the Republican’s side of the story. When a Democrat does wrong, the headline is “Republicans Accuse Democrat”, with a superficial description of the allegation followed by 3/4 of the story regurgitating the defense of the Democrat and casting aspersions on the character of those raising the accusations.
I exaggerate, but only a little.
How do you break through this?
I see no exaggeration here.
@terrymott and @kevinschulte , there isn’t an easy answer, but we have to try. I think if the Republicans enter into this process strategically–working with DOJ perhaps, recommending the people to target (the easiest to prosecute and have a victory), and stick with it, we may start seeing results. After all, the people ARE guilty; the evidence has already been demonstrated and ignored. Remember, it took progressives 100 years to get to this point. We’re just starting. Once we get started, we’ll have to track what’s working/not working in getting out the message, find people in the media on the left (however few they may be) to start at least wondering if there’s a fire behind the smoke and promote, clearly, passionately but also rationally, why we are pursuing this path: rule of law. And that includes educating the public on what that term means.