USA Desperately Needs Return of Rule of Law, Guided by Principle of Charity

The answer to this problem is resumption of the fulsome application of Rule of Law, and then adapt the Principle of Charity in which to assess individual suspects. See: The Principle of Charity: Assume the Best Interpretation of People’s Arguments

The principle of charity is a philosophical principle that denotes that, when interpreting someone’s statement, you should assume that the best possible interpretation of that statement is the one that the speaker meant to convey. Accordingly, to implement the principle of charity, you should not attribute falsehoods, logical fallacies, or irrationality to people’s argument, when there is a plausible, rational alternative available.

This canon of philosophical interpretation states that every argument should be given the best possible interpretation possible. Applying this standard, our laws should not assume any person guilty until probable cause is established. And, in fact, US law already does this. For example, all defendants in American courts are assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Further, the very phrase which calls for “Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt…” came from medieval Britain, demanded by a populace deathly afraid of the biblical phrase from Matthew, 7:1-2 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you..” See, “The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial.”

Now, as to the Rule of Law, Encyclopedia Britannica states the Rule of Law is defined as "the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a non-arbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power.” The phrase itself traces to 16th-century Britain. The next century, Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford argued for this against the divine right of kings. John Locke also battled Robert Filmer’s divine right arguments. Locke wrote that in society, all members are subject only to laws passed by a legislature, and outside this, all persons are free from both governmental and private restrictions on his liberty.

So, many will argue that the current president’s son has been given every possible element of the Principle of Charity, and yet this is a misreading of the narrative. In fact, the president’s son has been protected and coddled by the FBI and Dept of Justice, who have spent years covering up facts credibly related to him and his activities, and to his family. This is not charity, but in fact is a broadly placed fraud meant to obscure the graft committed by his entire Biden clan. This activity is the opposite of the proper application of the Principle of Charity, which is based upon good faith.

Now, as to the treatment of the Former President, we have another mistake of logic being used against him, called the Post Hoc Fallacy. So, if the Feds, Mainstream Media and all Democrats assume the Former President is the Devil Incarnate, then everything he is charged with must be true. See,The Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy: “After This, Therefore Because of This.”

Not only does this reject the Principle of Charity, it specifically sets aside Due Process by rejecting Probable Cause which is always needed for a police charge and prosecution. And so, the Former President is repeatedly indicted for dicey and dodgy charges, in multiple states most actually using laws that were rewritten or misapplied to make them fit.

Can American law be saved from the wildly unethical and history deforming decision-making taking place while hunting down the Former President? Of course, with a little luck, and God’s grace. But more broadly, we must go and re-establish such standards as Rule of Law, Due Process, and Probable Cause. And in the meanwhile, all the offenders of the last few years must be punished in some way.

And let’s not forget, Hanlon's razor as well:

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.”