What’s Rule of Law?

Guest Post by Walter E. Williams

President Barack Obama said just before the recent Ferguson, Missouri, riots, “First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law.” Most Americans have little or no inkling of what “rule of law” means. Many think it means obedience to whatever laws legislatures enact. That’s a vision that has led to human tragedy down through the ages. Historically, it sanctioned the divine right of kings, whereby a monarch was subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. More recently, it’s a vision that included the Nuremberg laws, which led to the genocide of European Jews, and the brutal laws of the regimes of Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong, which led to tens of millions of murders.

Let’s ask ourselves what the characteristics of laws in a free society should be. Let’s think about baseball rules (laws) as a way to approach this. Some players, through no fault of their own, hit fewer home runs than others. In order to create baseball justice, or what’s sometimes called a level playing field, how about a rule requiring pitchers to throw easier pitches to poorer home run hitters? Alternatively, we could make a rule that what would be a double for a power hitter is a home run for someone who doesn’t hit many homers.

Some pitchers aren’t so good as others. How about allowing those pitchers to stand closer to home plate? Better yet, we could rule their first two pitches as strikes, regardless of whether they are or not. In the interest of baseball justice, we might make special rules for some players and not for others. That would level the playing field between old players and young players, black players and white players and fast runners and slow runners. Umpires would become arbiters of baseball justice.

You say, “Williams, you can’t be serious! Can you imagine all the chaos that would ensue: players lobbying umpires, umpires deciding who gets what favor, and lawsuits — not to mention violence?” You’re absolutely right. The reason baseball games end peaceably — with players and team owners satisfied with the process, whether they win or lose — is that baseball rules (law) are applied equally to all players. They’re fixed, and umpires don’t make up rules as they go along. In other words, baseball rules meet the test of “abstractness.” They envision no particular game outcome in terms of winners and losers. The rules that govern baseball simply create a framework in which the game is played.

Laws or rules in a free society should have similar characteristics; there should be “rule of law.” Rule of law means that laws are certain and known in advance. Laws envision no particular outcome except that of allowing people to peaceably pursue their own objectives. Finally, and most importantly, laws are equally applied to everyone, including government officials.

Sir Henry Sumner Maine, probably the greatest legal historian ever, wrote, “The movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from Status to Contract.” In non-progressive societies, rule of law is absent. Laws are not general. They’re applied according to a person’s status or group membership. There’s rule not by legis, the Latin word for law, but by privilegium, the Latin term for private law.

Let’s look at our country and ask whether we live under rule of law. Just about every law that Congress enacts violates the requirements for rule of law. How do we determine violations of rule of law? It’s easy. See whether the law applies to particular Americans, as opposed to all Americans. See whether the law exempts public officials from its application. See whether the law is known in advance. See whether the law takes action against a person who has taken no aggressive action against another. If one conducts such a test, he will conclude that it is virtually impossible to find a single act of Congress that adheres to the principles of the rule of law. The supreme tragedy is Americans do not want rule of law.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
5 Comments
Stucky
Stucky
December 11, 2014 11:19 am

[imgcomment image[/img]

Stucky
Stucky
December 11, 2014 11:26 am

For decades, the task of counting the total number of federal criminal laws has bedeviled lawyers, academics and government officials.

In 1982, while at the Justice Department, Mr. Gainer oversaw what still stands as the most comprehensive attempt to tote up a number. The effort came as part of a long and ultimately failed campaign to persuade Congress to revise the criminal code, which by the 1980s was scattered among 50 titles and 23,000 pages of federal law

None of these studies broached the separate—and equally complex—question of crimes that stem from federal regulations, such as, for example, the rules written by a federal agency to enforce a given act of Congress. These rules can carry the force of federal criminal law. Estimates of the number of regulations range from 10,000 to 300,000. 300,000!!!??? None of the legal groups who have studied the code have a firm number.

“THERE IS NO ONE in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime,” said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. “That is not an exaggeration.”

By the time our new granddaughter, Rena, reaches 21, at the current rate of expansion the USA!USA!USA! might very well have over a million laws on the books.

USAES

overthecliff
overthecliff
December 11, 2014 12:10 pm

Professor Williams has a remarkable ability to filter the bullshit and condense understandable common sense.

TE
TE
December 11, 2014 2:19 pm

No human can possibly adhere to 300,000 different laws.

Now realize that those are on top of our local and state laws.

Millions and millions of regulations encompass every thing we do, every breath we take.

Yet, by all accounts, we are more helpless, less productive and sicker than we have ever been in history.

SUCCESS!

Bring it on. What the hell, Judge Napalitano says we commit three felonies a day. I expect by the end of this decade it will be 10-20 unless we go galt from everything, everyone and everyday.

What fun.

MuckAbout
MuckAbout
December 12, 2014 12:54 pm

Season’s best to you Ms. TE and I hope you can have a fun time anyhow after reading todays TBP.

I think I will cancel everything between tomorrow and January 5th or 6th and just enjoy what’s left of life to the fullest…

MA