Politricks: How the System Really Works. A Series. Episode One. The Rule of Law.

All con games work the same. The only thing that differs are the details. No matter how elaborate the form - from the oldest to the newest - the idea is to get someone to believe in a fiction so completely that they will never challenge the fundamentals of it. Even if a person recognizes something is wrong they will never consider that the basic belief is the problem. So lets be clear here this is all one big con(fidence) game. The understanding of how the system actually works is necessary to our ability to develop effective strategies and tactics to alleviate the problems that we all (or nearly all) recognize as detrimental to our survival and future prosperity. There are a number of concepts that we believe in (or say we believe in) that have been developed to distract and mislead Americans in order to prevent the inevitable awakening of "We The People".

When the people understand that they can never win in a system that was created to insure that the few will rule forever and the many will serve forever and that the many will never be part of the few they will rise up and throw off the chains that bind them. Until that happens we will continue to put people in office who will vote to maintain the status quo while we continue to believe the system will protect us and perhaps more importantly that it is capable of doing so. As I aways say the problem is our thinking. Until we change our thinking we will never change our circumstances. It has been said that word of mouth is the best advertising. What we have been doing for generations is advertising that our so-called constitutional rights have been violated despite the existence of the Constitution rather than they have been able to violate our human rights because of the Constitution.

We will begin with the so-called Rule of Law. The rule of law is, we are told, superior to the rule of men which is what we would have if we did not have the rule of law. As you will see this is a distinction without a difference.

The rule of men is characterized by arbitrary, unreviewable action. It opposes the Rule of Law. The rule of men is the absence of the rule of law. Theoretically the rule of men exists in a dictatorship where rules are made arbitarily and the leader's command is law. We can easily imagine how that arrangement might lead to problems. We need only consider the historical examples of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Hirohito, Idi Amin and a long list of others to prove the point. Clearly, these rulers made their own rules. Their actions were arbitrary by definition. Let us compare this to the rule of law.

The Rule of Law guarantees aritrary action. Clearly the idea is that the rule of men is to be avoided like the plague while the far superior rule of law is to be embraced almost as if it were sacred. But what after all is the rule of law?

Basically, the rule of law consists in the notion that (1) no one is above the law and (2) that the laws are written and exist as a result of some form of legislative process. The idea is that in this way abuses are less likely than in the case of the arbitary rule of men. Sounds good. But it is wholly undermined by convenient less discussed legal concept known as discretion. Black's Law Dictionary defines discretion as:

"... a power or right conferred ... by law of acting

officially in certain circumstances, according to

the dictates of their own judgment and conscience,

uncontrolled by the judgment or conscience of others."

Not suprisingly Webster's Dictionary defines arbitary as: "... law: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law." So discretion is arbitrary as a matter of law. At the same time all branches of government have considerable discretion.

The legislature can enact or not enact any law it wants whether their constituents approve or not. No one can force them to enact or repeal legislation. Any bill enacted by them that becomes law has the legal presumption of constitutionality.

The courts can exercise their ample discretion in virtually any case before them. The use of such discreation is seldom if ever found to be abusive.

The executive branch has the ample discretion to prosecute or not and no one overrule its decision. That's right the prosecutor's determination of who gets prosecuted is purely arbitrary. Let us also not forget that the executive has discretion to not enforce a law while the police have discretion to make an arrest or ignore a crime.

The point here is that the rule of law is little different from the rule of men except the rule of law is disguised in its arbitriness and the rule of men is not. Next episode: Cracks in the Constitution

_______________________________________________________

Johnnie Cordero holds a Bachelor's degree in Political Science and a Doctorate in Jurisprudence. He is the author of Total Black Empowerment: A Guide to Critical Thinking in the Age of Trump. His new book Theodicy and The Power of the African Will is now available on Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble and other on line book sellers.