The ‘Rule of Law’ Promotes Liberty or Fosters Tyranny – It all Depends
By Shane Flait © 2011

Often you hear that we are ruled by laws - not by men. That implies the laws are just and protect our liberty, whereas men (and women) rule when opportunity arises to their own interests with disbenefit to others. But, of course, laws are continually created and modified by men and women to serve their interests. So, bad laws that can tyrannize some people are to be expected.

Then, when is the ‘rule of law’ promoting liberty and not fostering tyranny? It does so when it secures our unalienable rights through court processes that preserve them for each of us. 

The freedom that we seek is really liberty. Liberty is freedom restrained and preserved through law. It guarantees our unalienable rights (our liberties) which are self-evident ‘rights’ embedded in the psyche of man. They arise from his nature and are unchanging.

America’s Declaration of Independence founded the U.S. as a government whose purpose is to secure the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and happiness for each of us. These include one’s right to self-determination, to own property, to parent his child, to pursue whatever profession or enterprise he wishes, among others.

The laws which a country devises are man-made laws so they are subject to the whims, interests, and errors of those that form the laws and the rules by which they’re carried out. Good laws are those that secure the unalienable rights for each of us. But the power of special interest groups can often pervert laws jeopardizing or denying rights of some.

Bad laws were expected by our founding fathers who were tyrannized by England’s treatment of them as colonials. They also recognized that laws deteriorate over time as special interest groups grow too much in influence and control within governmental affairs.

Seeking to guarantee our rights against the government, the founding fathers created the Bill of Rights (now complemented by further amendments) which purported to express some of our rights and restrict government infringement of them. Such rights are not subject to be voted down; they’re to be secured only. They make us a republic and not a pure democracy subject to tyrannical factions.

We each confront the laws of our land when we go to court either as a defendant against the state or as a litigant in a civil suit. So courts are where the ‘rubber meets the road’ – i.e. where you find out if your government is securing your inalienable rights or not. It’s the judicial system with its rules and processes that determine if your rights are protected – or not.

Right to trial by informed jury as protection against corrupt judicial processes and bad laws

Because of judiciary’s unique position of authority over the laws and its rules, the founding fathers believed it to be most vulnerable to perverting the meaning of good laws and forging bad processes under their own or others’ special interests. To counter the exclusive control of the judiciary by the judicial elite, a trial by an informed jury was built into the Bill of Rights even where only a substantial sum of money was at stake in a trial.

The jury was the public’s way of participating in the judicial process as a protection against judicial perversions or the bad laws it tries to enforce. The jury is considered ‘informed’ because it had the right not only to judge the truth or falsity of the evidence, but find the defendant innocent despite the evidence if they considered the law unjust or unfair.

Thomas Jefferson considered that guaranteeing an informed jury for trials was the only way yet known to man to preserve the principles of the constitution against bad laws and a perverted judiciary. Some even considered the right to an informed jury more important to preserving our liberty than the right to vote. 

Incorporating the Maxims of law promotes truth, justice and fairness in courts

Since it’s in the court and its processes where your rights are in jeopardy, it’s important that those processes and judgments reflect and incorporate those self-evident truths that we all know should apply. These are called Maxims of law.

The job of the Maxims is to bring out the truth of the matter. That’s because without truth you can’t have justice. And without justice, you can’t have liberty. So where the Maxims are ignored, the court is denying justice to a defendant or a litigant.

What function do Maxims promote in Court processes?  

Maxims:

• Promote truth by requiring only sworn testimony against a defendant or litigant and require that perjury be punished when evident.
• Don’t subject litigants to laws that are vague – not clear to exactly what’s required or due. Wrongs must be clearly wrong to reasonable persons - not made up whims of special  interest groups
• Require clear and convincing proof for wrongs done – not accusations and preconceived victims and perpetrators
• Recognize that litigants’ motives often determine the nature of their testimony
• Imposes no punishment or obligation where no wrong is done
• Matches obligations and the benefits that accompany them to the same litigant
• Assures the legal processes that benefit one person are not denied to another person.

It’s hard to believe that there are courts that ignore such self-evident requirements to help promote fair judgments. But there are.

Does the rule of law you’re living under mean liberty or tyranny?

Courts are where our rights are in jeopardy - where our unalienable rights are secured or not. Their position of final authority on what’s legal – versus what’s right and just - makes them dangerous to litigants and the principles of liberty.

Those who would tyrannize some while benefiting others, will do so through the judiciary and those court processes that exclude informed juries, ignore the Maxims of law, and enforce legal excuses that profess to be a greater good than our unalienable rights. 

Now you can recognize if you’re tyrannized or receiving justice according to the ‘rule of law’ you’re subject to.

 

 

End