Rule of Law, or Rule of Man?

[PredFan]

Our founding fathers designed this Republic to be run on the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Man. In fact the founding fathers detested the label Democrat, and the whole idea of Democracy. Simply going by whatever a majority of the voters wanted was a bad idea in their eyes. Think about two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. THAT is the Rule of Man.

Our country is and should be a country based on the Rule of Law. This brings me to Proposition 8.

The people voted essentially to ban Gay Marriage (Rule of Man), the judge, in a rare moment of sanity from this guy, shot it down because of the Rule of Law.

I hear this kind of thing from both the left and the right. "The people want this, and the people want that!" That isn't how this country was founded

I have a whole lot of issues with the whole Gay Marriage debate, and probably that's for another thread, and I don't like the way each side is acting on this issue, but I ALWAYS revert to the founding fathers on issues and even if I don't like the result, their logic is sopund and has worked for almost 250 years.

 

[editec]

Our Flounding Fathers believed that that this Republic ought to be run by the rule of SOME MEN (and not all that many) who write the laws.


And then and ONLY then will they concede that the rule of law was the key.

 

[healthmyths]

Our founding Fathers believed that rules of men were IN FACT subject to the rules of the Grand Law master.. God!
For example the very simple "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" DOES take precedence over ANY law pure and simple!
BUT today more and more people WANT the nanny state.. the cop on every corner and they don't seem to realize the fundamental law of diminishing returns is at play!

For example.. I wrote a thread regarding "banning texting while driving" as really not necessary if we all understood with as much clarity as we seemingly do with "global warming" the laws of physics i.e you can't in the time it takes from seeing to braking if you are texting! Laws of physics!

And yet some idiots instead of spending the millions of dollars on policing "texting while driving" was spent EDUCATING want MORE LAWS!

That's why more money, effort at home with families advertising spent on the "golden rule" "common sense.. show reasons why you can't stop the car..." IS the most efficient way of
society advancing... NOT by having more Laws!

Explain to me for example why in all the alien movies we never saw the aliens have a need for "police" or laws?
Most likely they were more intelligent and recognize that obeying laws of physics was more efficient then writing for example 40,000 NEW laws and regulations in the US in 2012 alone!

Common sense. Laws of Physics. "Golden Rule"... all if totally promoted advertised with the same
intensity as "global warming" has done inculcated in our pre-schoolers about global warming instead completely immersing our pre-schoolers in the "Golden Rule" the laws of physics we would advance
more efficiently!

 

[PredFan]

Our Flounding Fathers believed that that this Republic ought to be run by the rule of SOME MEN (and not all that many) who write the laws.


And then and ONLY then will they concede that the rule of law was the key.

Not true. How do you figure that? They founded this country on Rule of Law, not men.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I hear this kind of thing from both the left and the right. "The people want this, and the people want that!" That isn't how this country was founded.

Disagree, at the risk of turning the thread partisan.

But it is for the most part conservatives who run afoul of the principle of the rule of law, the evidence being their advocacy of ‘letting the states decide’ with regard to privacy rights, equal access to marriage law, immigration, and the conjoining of church and State.

Many conservatives, frustrated by what they incorrectly perceive as ‘activist judges’ and ‘legislating from the bench,’ try to circumvent the rule of law by subjecting civil rights to majority rule.

Indeed, there is a subscriber to this very thread who is making the idiotic argument that citizens of the United States are subject to ‘god’s law.’ It’s that type of arrogance and ignorance the Framers desired to guard against when they created our Constitutional Republic, where the people are subject only to the rule of law, not men.

 

[PredFan]

Our founding Fathers believed that rules of men were IN FACT subject to the rules of the Grand Law master.. God!
For example the very simple "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" DOES take precedence over ANY law pure and simple!
BUT today more and more people WANT the nanny state.. the cop on every corner and they don't seem to realize the fundamental law of diminishing returns is at play!

For example.. I wrote a thread regarding "banning texting while driving" as really not necessary if we all understood with as much clarity as we seemingly do with "global warming" the laws of physics i.e you can't in the time it takes from seeing to braking if you are texting! Laws of physics!

And yet some idiots instead of spending the millions of dollars on policing "texting while driving" was spent EDUCATING want MORE LAWS!

That's why more money, effort at home with families advertising spent on the "golden rule" "common sense.. show reasons why you can't stop the car..." IS the most efficient way of
society advancing... NOT by having more Laws!

Explain to me for example why in all the alien movies we never saw the aliens have a need for "police" or laws?
Most likely they were more intelligent and recognize that obeying laws of physics was more efficient then writing for example 40,000 NEW laws and regulations in the US in 2012 alone!

Common sense. Laws of Physics. "Golden Rule"... all if totally promoted advertised with the same
intensity as "global warming" has done inculcated in our pre-schoolers about global warming instead completely immersing our pre-schoolers in the "Golden Rule" the laws of physics we would advance
more efficiently!

I'm not sure I comprehend much of this.

But I'm not taliing about making more laws here. I'm just saying thatour founding fathers created this country with the intention of protecting a persons rights even if the majority of people want to take those rights away. They didn't want a majority of the country voting away a minority's rights.

 

[Full-Auto]

Our founding fathers designed this Republic to be run on the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Man. In fact the founding fathers detested the label Democrat, and the whole idea of Democracy. Simply going by whatever a majority of the voters wanted was a bad idea in their eyes. Think about two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. THAT is the Rule of Man.

Our country is and should be a country based on the Rule of Law. This brings me to Proposition 8.

The people voted essentially to ban Gay Marriage (Rule of Man), the judge, in a rare moment of sanity from this guy, shot it down because of the Rule of Law.

I hear this kind of thing from both the left and the right. "The people want this, and the people want that!" That isn't how this country was founded

I have a whole lot of issues with the whole Gay Marriage debate, and probably that's for another thread, and I don't like the way each side is acting on this issue, but I ALWAYS revert to the founding fathers on issues and even if I don't like the result, their logic is sopund and has worked for almost 250 years.

Some very good points...

So lets add also, the system was designed for gridlock when we could not reach agreement. Seems many on the left and some on the right want to sell the entire country down the river. MORE DEBT PLEASE.

 

[PredFan]

I hear this kind of thing from both the left and the right. "The people want this, and the people want that!" That isn't how this country was founded.

Disagree, at the risk of turning the thread partisan.

Of course you do. You argue with people on the right so you are more aware of this when people on the right do it. I also see more of the left doing this than the right but I didn't say that in the OP because I recognise that my view is skewed.

I hear this kind of thing from both the left and the right. "The people want this, and the people want that!" That isn't how this country was founded.

But it is for the most part conservatives who run afoul of the principle of the rule of law, the evidence being their advocacy of ‘letting the states decide’ with regard to privacy rights, equal access to marriage law, immigration, and the conjoining of church and State.

The states are still subject to Rule of Law. They have courts including State Supreme Courts that are designed to maintain the rule of law over the popular vote.

I hear this kind of thing from both the left and the right. "The people want this, and the people want that!" That isn't how this country was founded.

Many conservatives, frustrated by what they incorrectly perceive as ‘activist judges’ and ‘legislating from the bench,’ try to circumvent the rule of law by subjecting civil rights to majority rule.

Not "many conservatives" but some conservatives, yes. There are plenty of activist judges who don't follow the law at all and try to use their power to make up laws that don't follow the Constitution. Just because a judge says something doesn't mean it's law.

I hear this kind of thing from both the left and the right. "The people want this, and the people want that!" That isn't how this country was founded.

Indeed, there is a subscriber to this very thread who is making the idiotic argument that citizens of the United States are subject to ‘god’s law.’ It’s that type of arrogance and ignorance the Framers desired to guard against when they created our Constitutional Republic, where the people are subject only to the rule of law, not men.

I think you missed the point of his post.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

We're a nation of laws......majority of which are stupid and insult basic human intelligence. The Declaration was out greatest document hence the recognition of our unalienable rights from our creator. After the ink was signed on the original US Constitution, things went downhill.

 

[PredFan]

To be completely fair, while Proposition 8 is a good example of the right supporting the Rule of Man over the Rule of Law, immigration is a good example of the left doing the same.

Rule of Law says that the illegal immigrants do not have the right to be here, nor do they have the right to work here, or the right to not be deported when they are caught. Rule of Man is what the left uses to try to circumvent then Rule of Law on the illegal immigration issue.

 

[lawfulrevolt]

Our founding Fathers believed that rules of men were IN FACT subject to the rules of the Grand Law master.. God!

I'm going to agree with this, but I'm going to remove it from the realm of dogma.

Natural law was what they agreed upon, and did so quite well. Natural law can be seen as respect for our instincts, and how socially some structure work, and other don't.

The point of the capricious possibilities of democracy, when people are mislead, is a GOOD reason for a republic. However, things do change, and democratic determinations that are in accord with the principles of the republic are probably the only way to evolve the principles of the republic.

Now, to return to the dogmatic, because it is not mundane and it is not frivolous, but indeed can be seen as profound in many ways; as we evolve, we become closer to God.

Having said that, I would hpope to cap it off with saying we are 100 years late for an Article V convention, and I've absolutely certain that the problems which have been created are so huge that only such a convention with 3/4 of the states ratifying stands anything like a chance of restoring constitutional government.

However, to do that, delegates will have to agree at the out set to ratify preliminary and preparatory amendments;

1) End the abridged free speech conditions.
2) End unlimited corporate contributions to campaigns
3) Reform elections and secure methods of voting

 

[konradv]

Our founding Fathers believed that rules of men were IN FACT subject to the rules of the Grand Law master.. God!

I'm going to agree with this, but I'm going to remove it from the realm of dogma.

Natural law was what they agreed upon, and did so quite well. Natural law can be seen as respect for our instincts, and how socially some structure work, and other don't.

Natural Law is not something that "can be seen" but something that "is" and definitely not what you describe. The only natural law involves you sitting meekly by while I eat YOUR kill, if I'm stronger than you, and your only right is to the scraps I might leave you. The rest is just bullshit. Without government there are no laws or rights that anyone need follow.

 

[Truthmatters]

The right is severly confused about what the founders intended.

They talked about direct democracy being bad for the people.

Direct or pure democracy is when there are no reps and the people vote on EVERYTHING!.

That is one kind of democracy.

A republic in another type of Democracy.

Yes the founders LOVED Democracy.

They did not love direct or pure democracy which makes sense becasue its a mess if the people have to vote on EVERYTHING.

 

[Truthmatters]

democracy -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia



Democratic institutions

Since the time of the ancient Greeks, both the theory and the practice of democracy have undergone profound changes, many of which have concerned the prevailing answers to questions (1) through (3) above. Thus, for thousands of years the kind of association in which democracy was practiced, the tribe or the city-state, was small enough to be suitable for some form of democracy by assembly, or “direct democracy.” Much later, beginning in the 18th century, as the typical association became the nation-state or country, direct democracy gave way to representative democracy—a transformation so sweeping that, from the perspective of a citizen of ancient Athens, the governments of gigantic associations such as France or the United States might not have appeared democratic at all. This change in turn entailed a new answer to question (3): Representative democracy would require a set of political institutions radically different from those of all earlier democracies.

 

[Truthmatters]

Now ask yourself why someone is LYING to the people on the right.

Why do they want you misinformed about Democracy?

 

[JoeB131]

Our founding fathers designed this Republic to be run on the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Man. In fact the founding fathers detested the label Democrat, and the whole idea of Democracy. Simply going by whatever a majority of the voters wanted was a bad idea in their eyes. Think about two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. THAT is the Rule of Man.

Our country is and should be a country based on the Rule of Law. This brings me to Proposition 8.

The people voted essentially to ban Gay Marriage (Rule of Man), the judge, in a rare moment of sanity from this guy, shot it down because of the Rule of Law.

I hear this kind of thing from both the left and the right. "The people want this, and the people want that!" That isn't how this country was founded

I have a whole lot of issues with the whole Gay Marriage debate, and probably that's for another thread, and I don't like the way each side is acting on this issue, but I ALWAYS revert to the founding fathers on issues and even if I don't like the result, their logic is sopund and has worked for almost 250 years.

Well, no.

If the FOunding Fathers wanted to put a right to homosexual marriage in the constitution, they would have written one in there. They didn't. Even the 9th Circus backed off Judge Walker's conclusion that there was a "consitutional right" to gay marriage and did some handstands to strike down Prop 8 anyway.

Now, I thought Prop 8 was bad law, and I'm happy to see it overturned for no other reason than it will REALLY piss off the Mormons. (Who spent their kids' college funds to support it.)

But the people of California voted- twice- to define marriage as one man and one woman. Along come activist judges who decide, ah, screw it, it would be legal if I were writing the law. That's judicial activism, and it's wrong if it comes from the left or the right.

 

[Truthmatters]

The founders dont live any more.

The founders also left us a system in which we could make our government our own and its called the amendment system.

They WANTED us to be able to grow our country with our needs.

Why do you hate that part of the system the FOUNDERS designed for us?

 

[sparky]

Our Flounding Fathers believed that that this Republic ought to be run by the rule of SOME MEN (and not all that many) who write the laws.


And then and ONLY then will they concede that the rule of law was the key.

Not true. How do you figure that? They founded this country on Rule of Law, not men.

most of them were slave owners

~S~

 

[Truthmatters]

Why does the right constantly LIE about the founders intents?

 

[Truthmatters]

The right does this stupid propaganda thing about the constitution.

They pretend its not a living document.

THE FOUNDERS DESIGNED IT THAT WAY!

quit hating on the founders