"The United States of America: 'A Nation of Laws, Not a Nation of Men'"
Nov 8, 2017 14:52:23 #
"The United States of America: 'A Nation of Laws, Not a Nation of Men'"
"The United States of America:
'A Nation of Laws, Not a Nation of Men'"
by James Shott
"A primary element that has separated the United States of America from virtually every other nation in history is the concept of it being “a nation of laws, not a nation of men.” “A nation of laws” means that laws, not people, rule. Everyone is to be governed by the same laws, regardless of their station; whether it is the most common American or Members of Congress, high-ranking bureaucrats or the President of the United States; all must be held to the just laws of America. No one is, or can be allowed to be, above the law.
This idea was paramount in the complex process of establishing the United States of America, a young nation whose brave leaders had put everything on the line to escape the tyranny and oppression of the British Crown, which at the time was a nation ruled by people, in the person of King George III.
The Founders wrote restrictions into the Constitution against bills or laws of attainder, which are laws that do not apply equally to everyone, but target specific persons or groups in their enforcement, and are also known as “bills of pains and penalties.” In the hands of corrupt officials, these laws could be used as a weapon that would give an incumbent politician a major advantage over anyone else.
Can there be a better way for a nation to deal with its citizens than treating all of them equally under the law? About the only people who would disagree with this concept are those who are in a position, or want to be, to abuse the law and use their official positions unfairly, or those who benefit from that abuse.
Sadly, there are plenty of these un-American folks on the loose.
If laws are too numerous, abusive, designed to help or penalize one group at the expense of others, that nation is not a nation of laws. A nation of laws will not permit or tolerate laws designed for reasons other than justice, and it will not permit or tolerate laws that are ignored or selectively enforced because of some official’s political whim.
“We’re a nation of laws, not of men and women,” former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared, talking about a Nevada rancher refusing to pay grazing fees on land he and his ancestors grazed for free, until recently. Someone needed to remind Sen. Reid that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. He condemned one of his constituents for not obeying the law, but himself failed to bring a federal budget before the Senate for years, as required by Article I of the US Constitution. He violated his oath of office and terms of the Constitution, and has done so without penalty.
Attorney General Eric Holder earned the wrath of a federal judge for directing prosecutors to pursue shorter prison sentences for drug crimes before new guidelines for sentencing had been approved. “The law provides the Executive no authority to establish national sentencing policies based on speculation about how [the U.S. Sentencing Commission] and Congress might v**e on a proposed amendment,” Judge William H. Pryor, Jr. remarked. AG Holder also advised state Attorneys General that they do not have to enforce laws they disagree with, which essentially renders laws meaningless. Apparently, Mr. Holder thought only those laws individual government officials believe in are important. He did not have authority create these policies.
And then there was the President of the United States, Barack Obama. He who ruled by Executive Order is at the top of the list of those destroying the ideal of “a nation of laws.”
It’s not about the good intentions of an Executive Order; it’s about process, and the fact that in the United States we have a detailed process for changing laws, and that process does not empower the president to do so unilaterally. Congress must amend a law, or the judiciary can strike down an unconstitutional law.
So, when the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that the president so strongly advocated came up far short of the miracle we were told it would be, Mr. Obama suspended parts of the law to mitigate the harm it would cause, but that is not allowed by the Constitution. It ought to strike everyone as dangerous when the president says things like if Congress won’t do what he wants, he’ll use his pen to do it through an Executive Order. Perhaps he did not understand that the executive branch is equal to the legislative branch; the president is not more powerful than the Congress.
Speaking of Congress, it’s habit of shirking its law-making duty by passing legislation that enables administrative agencies to create and implement rules with the force of law goes a long way toward undermining the “nation of laws” concept. The Founders made Congress the law-making branch of the government, and did not allow for Congress to pass that duty to the executive branch.
The sad t***h is that the United States is not functioning as a nation of laws today. That status must be restored, and soon, or our very freedom is at risk."
- https://patriotpost.us/commentary/26902
Related:
"Rule of Law"
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
So far so true it seems...
"The United States of America:
'A Nation of Laws, Not a Nation of Men'"
by James Shott
"A primary element that has separated the United States of America from virtually every other nation in history is the concept of it being “a nation of laws, not a nation of men.” “A nation of laws” means that laws, not people, rule. Everyone is to be governed by the same laws, regardless of their station; whether it is the most common American or Members of Congress, high-ranking bureaucrats or the President of the United States; all must be held to the just laws of America. No one is, or can be allowed to be, above the law.
This idea was paramount in the complex process of establishing the United States of America, a young nation whose brave leaders had put everything on the line to escape the tyranny and oppression of the British Crown, which at the time was a nation ruled by people, in the person of King George III.
The Founders wrote restrictions into the Constitution against bills or laws of attainder, which are laws that do not apply equally to everyone, but target specific persons or groups in their enforcement, and are also known as “bills of pains and penalties.” In the hands of corrupt officials, these laws could be used as a weapon that would give an incumbent politician a major advantage over anyone else.
Can there be a better way for a nation to deal with its citizens than treating all of them equally under the law? About the only people who would disagree with this concept are those who are in a position, or want to be, to abuse the law and use their official positions unfairly, or those who benefit from that abuse.
Sadly, there are plenty of these un-American folks on the loose.
If laws are too numerous, abusive, designed to help or penalize one group at the expense of others, that nation is not a nation of laws. A nation of laws will not permit or tolerate laws designed for reasons other than justice, and it will not permit or tolerate laws that are ignored or selectively enforced because of some official’s political whim.
“We’re a nation of laws, not of men and women,” former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared, talking about a Nevada rancher refusing to pay grazing fees on land he and his ancestors grazed for free, until recently. Someone needed to remind Sen. Reid that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. He condemned one of his constituents for not obeying the law, but himself failed to bring a federal budget before the Senate for years, as required by Article I of the US Constitution. He violated his oath of office and terms of the Constitution, and has done so without penalty.
Attorney General Eric Holder earned the wrath of a federal judge for directing prosecutors to pursue shorter prison sentences for drug crimes before new guidelines for sentencing had been approved. “The law provides the Executive no authority to establish national sentencing policies based on speculation about how [the U.S. Sentencing Commission] and Congress might v**e on a proposed amendment,” Judge William H. Pryor, Jr. remarked. AG Holder also advised state Attorneys General that they do not have to enforce laws they disagree with, which essentially renders laws meaningless. Apparently, Mr. Holder thought only those laws individual government officials believe in are important. He did not have authority create these policies.
And then there was the President of the United States, Barack Obama. He who ruled by Executive Order is at the top of the list of those destroying the ideal of “a nation of laws.”
It’s not about the good intentions of an Executive Order; it’s about process, and the fact that in the United States we have a detailed process for changing laws, and that process does not empower the president to do so unilaterally. Congress must amend a law, or the judiciary can strike down an unconstitutional law.
So, when the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that the president so strongly advocated came up far short of the miracle we were told it would be, Mr. Obama suspended parts of the law to mitigate the harm it would cause, but that is not allowed by the Constitution. It ought to strike everyone as dangerous when the president says things like if Congress won’t do what he wants, he’ll use his pen to do it through an Executive Order. Perhaps he did not understand that the executive branch is equal to the legislative branch; the president is not more powerful than the Congress.
Speaking of Congress, it’s habit of shirking its law-making duty by passing legislation that enables administrative agencies to create and implement rules with the force of law goes a long way toward undermining the “nation of laws” concept. The Founders made Congress the law-making branch of the government, and did not allow for Congress to pass that duty to the executive branch.
The sad t***h is that the United States is not functioning as a nation of laws today. That status must be restored, and soon, or our very freedom is at risk."
- https://patriotpost.us/commentary/26902
Related:
"Rule of Law"
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
So far so true it seems...
Nov 10, 2017 00:09:03 #
Still seems to be working for them. I didn't see any special prosecutor being assigned to investigate the Clinton Mafia. Did I miss it, or isn't there one?
Semper Fi
Semper Fi
Nov 10, 2017 10:26:01 #
GmanTerry wrote:
Still seems to be working for them. I didn't see any special prosecutor being assigned to investigate the Clinton Mafia. Did I miss it, or isn't there one?
Semper Fi
Semper Fi
There is so much obvious criminality on the part of Justice Department Officials, FBI directors Mueller and Comey, the Clintons, Obama, the IRS directors Lerner and Koskinen, Atty Gnl Holder and a host of other supporting malefactors yet nothing is being done to bring these people to trial. When the people who are supposed to safeguard the nation are themselves the malefactors, we are in a Catch 22 situation.
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes", who watches the watchers?
Our dumbed down I-Phone and Gameboy watching populace has been mentally conditioned into stupor mode and it seems the only recourse is armed revolution. If, we could find anyone who cared enough to fight the battles, other than old fossils.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.