Talk:Rule of law/Archive 1

No offense, but the continual insertion of references to China in this article is frankly weird. The choice of "features" of the rule of law is selective and inadequate. The final paragraphs are off. The "critical theorists" link ought to be to "critical legal studies" (they are not mentioned in the "critical theorists" page) and/or "legal realists".


 * When we say that the supremacy or the rule of law is a characteristic of the English constitution ...

Shouldn't that be "the supremacy of the rule of law"?

-- mpt, 2003-05-23

No. I double checked it, in the previous paragraph he was discussing the supremacy of law. You can check an online version at www.consitution.org if you put in a find for "when we say" you can see the quote in a larger context. Here is the quote in context:


 * Three meanings of rule of law.


 * of the supremacy of law as being a characteristic of the English constitution, are using words which, though they possess a real significance, are nevertheless to most persons who employ them full of vagueness and ambiguity. If therefore we are ever to appreciate the full import of the idea denoted by the term "rule, supremacy, or predominance of law," we must first determine precisely what we mean by such expressions when we apply them to the British constitution.


 * When we say that the supremacy or the rule of law is a characteristic of the English constitution, we generally include under one expression at least three distinct though kindred conceptions.

So it appears that the quote "the supremacy or the rule of law" is correct.

-- Alex756

Just a note. This article ought to demonstrate that I'm not against writing about cross-cultural concepts when in fact those concepts are cross-cultural. Unlike divine right of kings and royal prerogative, rule of law is a ***very*** important concept in Chinese politics.

The part about rule of law in traditional Chinese thought needs to be looked over for NPOV. To what degree rule of law figured in traditional Chinese political thought is actually a really active area of historical research.

-- Roadrunner

Beg to differ. The "rule of law" is in itself a precisely defined law. It is the highest law of mankind, stated below:

“the suppression of forceful and fraudulent methods of goal seeking”

“all are treated equally by the law”. This means ALL, including king and judges

“absolute property rights”

This in turn is based on the fact that human behavior (the topic of law) is about goal seeking. In the seeking of any goal, there are only three possible methods: force, fraud and honest trade. Any transaction that is not an honest, mutually agreed trade will cause a self-defensive response (conflict) from the victim whose survival has been affected.

"The Rule of Law" is the glue that keeps all of mankind acting together in common interest, tied together by mutual dependence of trade, on an evolutionary path to excellence. Force and fraud creates conflict and destroys civilizations. Mankind is now on a devolutionary path to extinction because the co-operation once forced by "the rule of law" has been replaced by legitmizing force and fraud for those who incorrectly believe they wield power.

Rule of Law, Defined: http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/34

Purpose of, Reasons For: http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/36

Full Proof:  Read appendices first.

- rossb@rossco.org

The definition of "the rule of law" offered here is not very satisfactory:-

"The rule of law implies that government authority may only be exercised in accordance with written laws, which were adopted through an established procedure."

Surely the whole body of Common Law in the English-speaking countries falls outside this definition, as with much of International Law. Also some points raise some problems e.g. "legal equality". There remains some very limited forms of legal anti-Catholic discrimination in Britain, and not so long ago this was more far-reaching. A lot of societies have suspended Habeas Corpus at times. The Pinochet case in Britain recently was controversial, but nobody argued that the idea that certain people (e.g. heads of state) had immunity from prosecution was inherently incompatible with the rule of law. Some of these definitions would render meaningless terms like e.g. Roman Law. PatGallacher 16:42, 2005 July 31 (UTC)

Actually, you're confusing the word "law" with the word "statute." Statutes are laws that originate with legislatures. But rules articulated in common law legal opinions are also laws as well, in the sense that if any particular defendant does not obey them, then a lower court will apply them against that defendant, if and when that defendant is sued or charged. For example, even though some conservative judges do not like the case of Miranda v. Arizona, they will apply the Miranda exclusionary rule to throw out any confession that was obtained without first giving the defendant his Miranda warnings or without a knowing, voluntary waiver of Miranda rights. They will do that because they know that if they do not, then the defendant's conviction may be reversed on appeal, and then the case may be remanded to their courtroom for a new trial (and trial judges always have too many cases to deal with at any given time).

The point is that laws can come from both courts and legislatures (pursuant to procedures established by tradition or by constitutions), and then must be obeyed. --Coolcaesar 19:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Was rule of law opposed in totalitarian USSR?
For example, Stalin ruled with the significant help of law. Rule of law wasn't opposed, but the law was bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Lord Bingham's sub rules
I've edited out "The British View" from that section. Lord Bingham's opinions do not represent british legal thought as a whole, but only a small subset of it. His contentions are not at all the subject of widespread agreement Lawrencewiseman 20:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Chaos Theory?
The last paragraph sound like original research. It's an interesting concept, but I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate. Perhaps it needs citations? Discuss. (oops, forgot sig) 71.103.179.174 03:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Bvanderveen 03:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * While interesting, I believe it should be removed as original research until someone comes back here and provides a citation to a relevant book or article that actually provides justification for such a wild connection. --Coolcaesar 00:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)