frankNovember 15, 2021 at 23:481750 views5 comments
Is rule of law really possible? If there are fundamental disagreements about how the constitution should be read, doesn't that mean political parties ultimately rule?
Comments (5)
James RileyNovember 16, 2021 at 00:00#6209430 likes
There is a big difference between the way thing are and the way they are supposed to be (as laid out by our organic documents). At the end of the day, it's the Golden Rule: Those with the gold make the rules.
Chief Justice John Marshal said something to the effect that "It is emphatically the province of this court to say what the law is." Marbury v Madison. So the court(s), not the political parties, are supposed to articulate the rule of law, and the executive is supposed to enforce it. The legislature makes laws and the court(s) decide if those laws are Constitutional. I know you know all this, but I reiterate it just in case people lose the idea of what the rule of law is supposed to be.
Some will say Marshal pulled that out of his ass because it's not in the Constitution. But what else would courts do? Play golf? With life time appointments, they are supposed to be above money. Hmmmm.
Get money out of politics ( :rofl: ) and the rule of law is possible. Good luck. In the mean time, we get lip service and a scrap now and then if it serves money's purposes.
Deleted UserNovember 16, 2021 at 02:00#6209890 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
For Hayek, there's a big difference between legislation and law. Legislation is top down. It could come from an elected congress, from an oligarchy, or a dictator, but to the average person it's all the same.
For Hayek, law is social norms that emerge spontaneously and need no government enforcement, like standing in line at the bank, and so forth.
Usually we play by the rules of civil discourse. They do not. If they break the rules, we need to be able to respond appropriately and in timely manner.
How?
Do iIllustrate this on an example of your choosing.
CiceronianusNovember 22, 2021 at 22:22#6231310 likes
My understanding is the rule of law refers to its equal application and enforcement as regards all persons and entities. I don't think the phrase is intended to refer to the quality of the laws, which are assumed to be good. The rule of law isn't "all laws must be good" in other words. It requires independent adjudication and enforcement.
Comments (5)
Chief Justice John Marshal said something to the effect that "It is emphatically the province of this court to say what the law is." Marbury v Madison. So the court(s), not the political parties, are supposed to articulate the rule of law, and the executive is supposed to enforce it. The legislature makes laws and the court(s) decide if those laws are Constitutional. I know you know all this, but I reiterate it just in case people lose the idea of what the rule of law is supposed to be.
Some will say Marshal pulled that out of his ass because it's not in the Constitution. But what else would courts do? Play golf? With life time appointments, they are supposed to be above money. Hmmmm.
Get money out of politics ( :rofl: ) and the rule of law is possible. Good luck. In the mean time, we get lip service and a scrap now and then if it serves money's purposes.
For Hayek, there's a big difference between legislation and law. Legislation is top down. It could come from an elected congress, from an oligarchy, or a dictator, but to the average person it's all the same.
For Hayek, law is social norms that emerge spontaneously and need no government enforcement, like standing in line at the bank, and so forth.
How?
Do iIllustrate this on an example of your choosing.