"In essence, it means that we are ruled by the law of the people, not by the arbitrary law of a superior individual or power group operating above the law."

So if we are ruled by the law of the people, why is it the people arent allowed to know the precise details about trade and financial discussions that relate to the secretive TPP and the G7?

The Rule of Law - Just exactly does it mean again?

Democracy isnt as perfect as what you would like to think it is.
"Democracy" allowed our glorious leaders to sell us out into the private banking system that issues money as a loan with interest.

And the money owed in debt is always greater than the amount of currency issued.
So for one thats a trap that enslaves entire nations to the private banking system.

Next, Democracy allows the 51% to take away the rights of the 49%
So all you have to do is influence a certain group of people on an issue to change a law.

Problem, Reaction, Solution.
Talking Point, Reaction, Solution.

And how democratic is Democracy when PMs need to sell out for campaign contributions?
Then it just comes down to whoever can pay.

Democracy's a great tool if you want to strip a nation of its natural resources, infrastructure and wealth by selling off the assets to foreign private interests.
You can't do that under any other type of government.

I believe in democracy, but its nowhere near perfect.
And its foolish to think it is.

Under genuine democracies, where the power to govern is derived from the voting public, there is the ultimate rule of public trust law. in the Philippines and India that law has been used occasionally to ensure the right of next generation to inherit the environment from the current generation unimpaired.

In the USA, using public trust law, foreshore on navigable water is protected from development for non public purposes.

Under Australia's Constitutional Monarchy the fiction that power flows down from above is maintained. Mining companies are allowed to alienate natural water, both surface and in aquifers, and is not required to return open cut mining areas to anywhere near the pre-mining state. If public trust law was available in this country and enforced that could not be permitted.

We need a republic where it is accepted that we the people are sovereign and where exemptions from environmental laws are not granted. Professor Mary Wood's book, Nature's Trust, is worth reading on this subject.

Notice how
1. most discussions of government talk about the State, but never question the fixed idea of the State itself?
2. when they do question it, they always fall back to fictions, for example that the State comes into existence from a "social contract" (that doesn't exist), or that the State "represents the people" (better than the people represent themselves).

Here is another such fiction.

"This concept of governance derives from ancient times when a leader was chosen (elected) for his strength and leadership qualities, not as a ruler with superior power, but as the first of equals."

It is fiction to assert that, pre-1215, kings or leaders were "chosen (elected)".

The essence of the error is to confound non-consensual social relations based on aggression and expropriation on one side and obedience or resignation on the other, with social relations based on consent. The same fiction is then carried into modern times, as shown by Foyle's post.

However it remains a fiction, and this invalidates the author's and Foyle's theories of the rule of law.

"As Charles I was to assert in 1660..."

BTW you mean Charles II. The first lost his head in 1649 or so they say.

It means nothing!

There are people who like to assert themselves over others by force.
The brave and honest among them offer no excuses.
Those who have no integrity, however, offer nonsensical excuses such as "rule of law".
Anyone who has eyes can see those predators for what they are behind that thin veneer.

An interesting piece, thank you.

Funny that some seem not to want a rule of law at all.

Dear Craig,

<<Funny that some seem not to want a rule of law at all.>>

Why? We already have the rule of law which I am very happy about - those are the laws made in heaven and embedded both in nature and in our spirit: they are perfect as they are and offer absolute justice, so no other man-made laws are required in addition.

so many especially on the left hate democracy. Otherwise they would allow referendums on 'gay'marriage, captial punishment, islamic immigration and other issues without some deranged lawyer/judge over riding/ dictating to the majority.

At the end of the day we elect governments to ensure the rule of law as we understand and want it; and where it fails to do that amend it so it does.
Just as long as there remains judicial review, I have no problem with a minister thoroughly advised by our intelligence services that there is a bona fide case to implement certain provisions of an enacted law, then so be it!

For mine I just don't see what all the fuss is about?

If folks want to sally forth and go on a murder, rape, beheading and crucifixion, killing spree in some foreign land and expect to be able to return with apparent impunity; I for one say no!

You have broken dozens of immutable laws against both God and Man, for which we have no mechanism to redress,under our law, save expel you into permanent exile as a no longer unwanted individual!

At the end of the day the rule of law has to equate with true and deserved justice!
Rhrosty.

The content of this piece is undoubtedly correct. It's a 'lesson' to us, and one we should heed. There is no room for argument at all.

I liked this article. It reminds us that in a democratic society like Australia, no one is above the law...including dictator immigration ministers who want to take away an Australian's citizenship single-handedly.

Yuyutsu " We already have the rule of law which I am very happy about - those are the laws made in heaven and embedded both in nature and in our spirit: they are perfect as they are and offer absolute justice, so no other man-made laws are required in addition."

You may imagine that laws are made in an imaginary place in the sky Yuyutsu, but not everyone shares this dream.
Religion and Government laws need to be kept apart at all times if we are to maintain a true democracy, and not one driven by superstitions and fairytales.

Dear Suse,

Are you suggesting to do away with the superstitious law of gravity? Good luck...

And what right have you to impose democracy anyway, which is nothing but the dictatorship of the majority?

As far as I can see the rule of law has nothing to do with rule by the people, or the people's representatives in the government. It has even less to do with justice. Anyone expecting justice to triumph over precedent, or the whim of some judges is a bit foolish.

The law is controlled by people who have a legal qualification, granted by some university. They form the entire body of judges, & legal practitioners. These judges regularly thumb their noses at the will of the people in the form of the government.

In Queensland they have recently forced the resignation of the top judge, legally appointed by the parliament, when that appointment did not meet their approval, or plan of succession.

In the USA just one of them has decided to make same sex marriage legal. That these legal practitioners can claim to be administering the law, when such a basic new law can be instituted by a 5 to 4 decision of a court indicates how we are governed not by the law, or government, but by the whim of a few old self-satisfied fools, answerable to no one.

Keep arguing about peripheral matters people, that will effect nothing. Thank god I'm too old to be bothered with who rules me these days, or I might get upset about it all.

Yuyutsu, the law of gravity?
Not at all. But I don't think this law was made in 'heaven' was it?
I believe a human worked this out all by himself.

Dear Suse,

<<I believe a human worked this out all by himself.>>

How wonderful - so before Newton, when apples detached from trees they flew up to the sky...