Last updated on March 5, 2023
Ever since the election fraud conversation began, I keep hearing people who don’t believe it occurred telling us that none of this has been proven in court and that we need to respect “the law”, whether that includes actual statutes or some interpretation/decision by a court.
It’s a hard argument to fight isn’t it? People on our side have always been the ones who had the most respect for the law. During the cultural revolutions of the 1960’s we stood by, made fun of the craziness, but did nothing to stop it from happening. Sure, there were plenty of great minds that made compelling arguments against post-modernism, socialism and critical race theory, but it was all talk.
In the 1980’s, so many on our side ended up voting for Ronald Reagan and we enjoyed a few short years of respite. All the while we followed the law, thinking we had won, while the deep-state kept growing.
Conservatives/Republicans/right-wingers, whatever you want to call them, have a serious blind spot that comes from our desire to be left alone. It manifests in us ignoring politics, particularly when “our side” has the Presidency. Politics is annoying, we need to work to support our family, we tell ourselves that we don’t have time for this and continue to follow the law.
We do get worked up for a while when some politician threatens gun control or universal healthcare, but a few months later it’s all forgotten. Meanwhile, the opposition never rests and keeps passing more laws for us to follow. Much of it is understandable. How do you compete with paid political agitators, social-justice warriors and trust-fund socialist college kids when you have to keep the country running?
Rule of Law is an incredibly important concept that is often misunderstood today. A few years ago I was in Roseburg, Oregon protesting overreach by the Bureau of Land Management. A man I believed to be a BLM employee walked past me and asked “Do you know what Rule of Law is?”, thinking he could put one over on me. Of course, he walked off before I could really respond, but I’m pretty sure I know what he was getting at. In his mind, Rule of Law probably meant “whatever laws are passed, you have to follow” and “courts are the ultimate arbiters of what the law actually says”.
Unfortunately, both of these are completely wrong. Rule of Law simply means that the law must be equally applied to all citizens. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Section 1) states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
To claim that any law passed, or any interpretation of a law by a court must be followed is facially absurd. Slavery was once legal in the United States, does that make it just? Adolf Hitler was democratically elected, does that mean we had no right to stop his insanity? If some political body passed a law stating that “2+2=5”, does that make it any less wrong? The Founding Fathers answered these questions in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Laws only mean something so long as they promote rightful liberty and are equally applied. Once those conditions are not met, we have a duty to stop following them. This is not a decision made lightly. Rule of Law is an important principle because it keeps people of widely varying political/religious opinions from slitting each other’s throats. One only need look at the French Revolution or any number of third-world countries to see what happens when there is no Rule of Law. No one in their right mind wants this.
To make one final point regarding “The Law”, I quote a character from “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” by Robert A. Heinlein:
“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.“
The law is not something to be worshiped. Doing so leaves us at the mercy of politicians and lawyers, who think only in absolutes. The law exists to help us get along with each other. When it no longer serves that purpose it must be abolished.
-Editor @ Dailyresister.com
Comments are closed.