Saturday, October 31, 2020

The Threat to the Rule of Law

It is useful to look back more than four years to see how Donald Trump was seen before he was nominated.  

In Donald Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say (6/3/2016) Adam Liptak wrote: 

Donald J. Trump’s blustery attacks on the press, complaints about the judicial system and bold claims of presidential power collectively sketch out a constitutional worldview that shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law, legal experts across the political spectrum say.

He went on to list the views of several major players at that time, before Trump's formal nomination.  Some thought that institutional norms would limit Trump:

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who has become a reluctant supporter of Mr. Trump, said he did not believe that the nation would be in danger under his presidency. 'I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations,' Mr. McCain said. "We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We’re not Romania. Our institutions, including the press, are still strong enough to prevent' unconstitutional acts," he said.

I hear that it is beautiful in Bucharest this time of year.  Obviously, Senator McCain was quickly disabused of the idea that somehow President Trump would be limited by any of these institutions or norms.

The risk that Donald Trump could damage the rule of law was recognized from the beginning, but his willingness to act with the assumption of impunity was not expected.  A brief (and incomplete) summary of the threat could be arranged by what characteristic of the rule of law is damaged by his actions;

  • Equality: Refused to submit tax returns, rejected valid Congressional subpoenas, asserted powers not in the Constitution.
  • Effectiveness: Interfered with the work of inspector generals of agencies including removing or replacing five just this last spring.  Apparently Trump considered them disloyal for doing their jobs when they investigated him, or his appointees.  Only one had ever been fired before, by Obama, during eight years in office.
  • Independence: Sought to directly interfere with decisions of career prosecutors in criminal cases that affected his or his allies interests, abetted by the Attorney General.  
  • Justice: Instituted an intentionally cruel policy of separating children from parents when detained by immigration authorities.  Then Attorney General Jeff Sessions openly said the purpose was to create a deterrent. 
There is a lot more than that to consider.

Sunday, October 04, 2020

So, what is the rule of law?

 Well, things have been busy.   I said I would have some notes on rule of law, and after redoing them several times (I find writing hard) here they are.

Context: I am suggesting that some political prolife groups are making choices that conflict with the rule of law, which may undercut any supposed gains made.

--------- 

The rule of law is not merely that there are laws, and that they are enforced. (I've seen this referred to as "rule by law".) Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would qualify -- both had police, courts, lawyers, and at times forms of due process. Then and now it is not enough.

Generally, a legal system upholds the rule of law if it has certain characteristics.

  • Equality: it holds every person or entity, including the state, equally accountable to the law.
  • Effectiveness: it enacts, administers, and enforces the law fairly, accessibly, and efficently.
  • Independence: it enforces the law through an independent judiciary.
  • Justice: it protects human rights.

This requires processes and norms (formal and informal) that constitute a legal system that can be resilient, supple, and self-correcting.    

Experience shows that the rule of law is a critical part of establishing and maintaining: 

  • stability and order,
  • social and economic progress, and
  • human dignity.

For all this to work, the people need to see the system as legitimate and choose to obey the law.  Americans historically have followed the law as well or better than any other nation.  That has been damaged recently, and may well get much worse.

Next: what is going wrong.

Monday, September 28, 2020

Being both pro-life, and committed to the rule of law

I fear that the political pro-life movement is about to collide with the rule of law. 


That will be self-defeating, and it won't help the rule of law either. If you really want to protect human rights and dignity at all stages of life, you are asking to expand the rule of law to equally include all persons, especially those most under threat. This includes the poor, the sick, the stranger, the young and the old, the prisoner and the unborn. Of course this assumes you have established and will maintain that same rule of law. 

For decades most of the political pro-life movement has narrowed its target to reversing Roe v Wade. More recently, in order to achieve that one thing, many have chosen to support persons and groups that are working now to deeply damage the rule of law. The aim seems to be winning, with little concern for collateral damage. Changing the law means little if law itself is debased. One is asking for too little, and is willing to pay far too much for it. Enough now. More on that rule of law later . . .