top of page

201. The Rule of Law and Its Enforcement

Government acts in violation of the express language of the constitution all of the time.  The undue burden/ hardship doctrine was established under due process a long time ago.  For example, your State will demand someone else's backfees or backtaxes from you if they do not register a car for non-operation or pay the property taxes for their house and then you buy it.  Why would you owe the government money for someone else's debts for not driving on the roads or not having relation to that property during that time?  Does anything other than a government burden constitute this so-called illegality? 

Unconstitutional Govt Acts Cited Under Law

We've all seen government personnel get away with the
unimaginable, just like an unconstitutional governing
class.  Hamilton wrote about immunities, but none of the founders ever imagined the countless crimes committed
against the people today under qualified immunity.  The
difference is that our most powerful public servants do
not need the replicable level of immunity that they have 
to perform their duties.  Basically, government immunity
should directly correlate with duties being performed, public officials shouldn't have near-"blanket" immunity.  Evidence showing that                 we are serving them more than they are                                 serving us can be drawn from this                                             situation where we do not                                                                have limits.

Boundless Govt Immunities

As of right now, government can suspend our rights and any other law whenever they declare an emergency, and those emergency powers aren't so clear either.  Most Americans do not consent to boundless emergency power, and it arguably constitutes the greatest threat posed to citizens by government.  Real Americans cannot stress the central importance of this great punishment waiting for its moment in the shadows enough.  Like with government immunities, any suspension of rights should be direct-correlation based, and only in the case of an emergency.  Reasonable people should hesitate at any idea of suspending laws, but the founders knew themselves how hard it                  would be to hold fair trials in an active                                  war.  Maybe just
   too vaguely                                                     back then
      on the                                                                 spot.

Boundless Govt Emergency Powers

Think about it: should government make laws that criminalize its "enemies?"  If treason was only defined as enemies of the constitution instead of the government, a lot of progress would be made.  A ban on enemies of the government is a ban on dissent, and this is just as dangerous as boundless emergency powers.  Our constitution is instituted for the republican form of government and contains rights that stand as exceptional throughout human history.  These rights directly protect a few acts that have been criminalized as "treasonous" in statute, so in fact, it is these prohibitions subversive to the constitution that are treasonous.  Could hyperpartisan lunatics                 falsely characterize gatherings that get                                out of hand as an emergency act of                                            war, or would doing that                                                               be treason?

The Prohibition of "Enemies of the Govt"

Definition of the Rule of Law Itself

The UN defines the rule of law as "a principle of governance in which all persons are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of the law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness, and procedural and legal transparency."  Wow, that's idealistic!  However, these absurdly steep criteria are seen nowhere on Earth, especially in the UN!  If these things are "opinions," the rule of law is simply the legality principle, which we have a hard enough time with.  "Legality" is the principle that holds law & society accountable to applicable laws such as foundational, constitutional rules for lawmaking, its enforcement, and adjudication.  The legality principle finds its foundation in due process, and it is characterized by strict construction.    When paired with popular sovereignty and freedom, the rule of            law is supposed to protect against unrepublican                           strict construction technicalities.                                                  But we need to
         enforce                                                                it!

My Longtime, Ideal PhD Dissertation Topic: "Force Accountability Theory"

The age-old struggle since ancient times is that government does not hold itself accountable or enforce the law on itself.  While law enforcement bodies are burdened with so much work on private persons, that does not excuse so much government immunity through discretion.  The unfortunate reality is that a government that continuously breaks laws must be stopped somehow like any other breaker of laws.  That is why the founders entitled us to natural rights, sovereignty power, and the republican form of government.  Now that the founders hypothesis is well-replicated theory and those with the power perpetually do nothing, we need an office to relieve the burdens on other offices for prosecuting crime in power and injuries to our constitution.  We also need to carefully clarify what constitutes reasonableness in action for strictly constitutional matters of such a serious nature, waiting to explode in chaos if we do not.

bottom of page