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. History teaches 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. S
amuel 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 general principle 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.
II. Why Does Rule of Law Matter in the Modern World?
Many modern persons believe that all the important battles for liberty, rights, and freedoms have already been won and the world is therefore now a safe place. This conclusion could not be more naive, lazy-minded, or wrong-headed. In fact, the world is more dangerous than it has ever been, despite the false security the saccharine illusion of pseudo-democracy and technology give off. Ponder for just a moment that last century, more innocent persons were murdered by their government than in all the previous centuries combined--
170 million, according to U of Hawaii's Prof Rummell!
The two polar opposites are the ideas of humanism versus the common law, Marxism versus capitalism, or secularism versus traditional biblical religion. But while the Bible might have its Ten Commandments which are then available for use as the foundation for a secular code--at least the first five, which then becomes the basis for the common law, etc., one does not find any such prohibitions in Marxist legal theory. In fact, in the various books all artfully composed upon the subject of Marxist law and ethics and morality, we find an utter dearth of prohibitions against anything.
III. Dangers of Barack's Approach to Law
And ironically, America's current administration is flirting with the same list of discredited and infamous thinkers who inspired the communists! If you find this hard to believe, consider the fact that several of Barack's cabinet members and czars claimed inspiration by history's greatest mass murderer--Chairman Mao! (see
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn Loves Mao Zedong)
The opposite of being under the Rule of Law is being lawless, obviously. In the case of a high public official, this is extremely worrisome because the lawless decisions by this person will affect so many.
But recently, a growing chorus has been claiming Obama is a lawless leader. Some of the claims are as follows:
From Commentary magazine, we get this overview:
Barack Obama's Lawlessness
Both Charles Krauthammer and Ramesh Ponnuru have spoken about the lawlessness of the Obama administration. Examples include (but are not limited to) unilaterally delaying implementation of the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate, issuing health-care edicts that undermine the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, making unconstitutional "recess appointments" to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, refusing to enforce current immigration laws related to illegal immigrants who were brought to America as children, and waiving welfare work requirements.
This is all part of a pattern in which Mr. Obama enforces laws he likes and refuses to enforce (or unilaterally alters) laws he disagrees with. I suppose the temptation to act as a potentate is understandable; but it also happens to be illegal. The president, after all, has the constitutional duty to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed" (see Article II, Section 3 for more).
Here are further titles upon the subject of Barack's lawlessness:
Obama's Dangerous Contempt for the Rule of Law
Employer Mandate? Never Mind: Obama decides not to enforce the heart of his health-care law.
Krauthammer: Obama's 1st Goal Is To Hook Americans On Healthcare Heroin
Obama Presidency A Lengthening Legacy Of Lawlessness
Congressman: Obama's Lawless Administration Changing Benghazi Survivors' Names, Dispersing them Throughout US in Massive Cover-up (+video)
Obama's unconstitutional steps worse than Nixon's
Court orders administration to follow nuclear waste law
Obama's fall from grace sets a scary precedent for future presidents
Conclusion
Without the Rule of Law, America could not have become the great and wise power we evolved into. Obama knows this, and so to break our independence and to bend us to his will, we must sacrifice the Rule of Law itself for the higher goal of wealth redistribution and the subjugation of the masses. If this cannot be stopped now, tyranny will reign. Are there enough patriots left to impeach?
