An article written by David Rosenthal in "The American Thinker":
When legislatures create laws that call for actions to be taken that contradict constitutional law, they exceed the boundaries of their delegated powers, contradict the law of the land, and set up conditions leading to violation of civil rights. Executives who sign those pieces of legislation into law also act corruptly and in violation of constitutional law.
Red flag laws, for example, which permit circumvention of due process, are unconstitutional. Yet judges use them as a basis for issuing orders to confiscate firearms. When they do so, they are violating constitutional law.
Judicial orders that call for confiscation of firearms on the basis of unsubstantiated claims are unenforceable. Yet police officers obey those orders. When they do so, they are violating constitutional law and their oath to support and defend the Constitution.
There is a lot of unlawful activity going on in American bureaucracy. Some of it relates to red flag laws and other unconstitutional gun legislation. Some of it relates to permitting socialists and Islamofascists to hold office, which is unlawful. Some of it relates to unlawful attempts to suppress intelligent opposition to Islamofascist barbarism. These are just a few examples.
The common denominator in all of these and other criminal acts committed by public officials in all branches and at all levels of government is the refusal to keep the oath of office, refusal to remain bound by the limits of delegated power, and refusal to be guided by constitutional law. One could say the rule of law has become fluid, subject to the whims of those in power.
The refusal to keep the oath of office is so commonplace, resulting in no consequences, that even presidential candidates now campaign on the basis of promises to violate the Constitution upon taking office. That is extremely ironic, since swearing to support the Constitution is an inviolable lawful prerequisite to taking office. But no one seems to take it seriously.
The rule of law is subject to extraconstitutional whimsy. Judges often rule, not exclusively on the basis of facts substantiated by clear evidence, sound reason, and clear law, but on the basis of whatever seems right to them. They are delegated to interpret, but they reinvent law and reality. They do what fiction-writers do, and thus hand down decisions that create havoc.
Law enforcement officials then follow the decisions, thus incomprehensibly rendered to do in society what the Constitution prohibits. Other judges and attorneys use those unconstitutional rulings as precedents on which to base subsequent bad rulings. The rule of law thus crumbles, as the people affected by those bad decisions are harrowed, and as society falls farther under rule of the whims of self-important bureaucrats in contempt of constitutional law, rights, and the oath of office.
The bureaucrats have nothing much to say about the ubiquitous refusal to keep the oath, or to enforce constitutional law. The media might as well be on the official payroll. And the people seem to be paralyzed by fear, apathy, or ignorance, as the epidemic of official unwillingness to enforce constitutional law entrenches itself in every corner of America.
The rule of law is almost a thing of the past. Rumors rumble regarding unopened indictments that are celebrated by those who hope for the now proverbial swamp to be drained. But those are federal issues. Local swamp denizens continue to violate at will without having to fear (let alone face) consequences for malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance.
Rule of law seems to be the most anachronistic of the age-old principles. As respect for its importance to the stability of civil society wanes, it is replaced more and more with contempt for rule of law, contempt for rights, and contempt for people.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/as_the_rule_of_law_dissipates.html
Red flag laws, for example, which permit circumvention of due process, are unconstitutional. Yet judges use them as a basis for issuing orders to confiscate firearms. When they do so, they are violating constitutional law.
Judicial orders that call for confiscation of firearms on the basis of unsubstantiated claims are unenforceable. Yet police officers obey those orders. When they do so, they are violating constitutional law and their oath to support and defend the Constitution.
There is a lot of unlawful activity going on in American bureaucracy. Some of it relates to red flag laws and other unconstitutional gun legislation. Some of it relates to permitting socialists and Islamofascists to hold office, which is unlawful. Some of it relates to unlawful attempts to suppress intelligent opposition to Islamofascist barbarism. These are just a few examples.
The common denominator in all of these and other criminal acts committed by public officials in all branches and at all levels of government is the refusal to keep the oath of office, refusal to remain bound by the limits of delegated power, and refusal to be guided by constitutional law. One could say the rule of law has become fluid, subject to the whims of those in power.
The refusal to keep the oath of office is so commonplace, resulting in no consequences, that even presidential candidates now campaign on the basis of promises to violate the Constitution upon taking office. That is extremely ironic, since swearing to support the Constitution is an inviolable lawful prerequisite to taking office. But no one seems to take it seriously.
The rule of law is subject to extraconstitutional whimsy. Judges often rule, not exclusively on the basis of facts substantiated by clear evidence, sound reason, and clear law, but on the basis of whatever seems right to them. They are delegated to interpret, but they reinvent law and reality. They do what fiction-writers do, and thus hand down decisions that create havoc.
Law enforcement officials then follow the decisions, thus incomprehensibly rendered to do in society what the Constitution prohibits. Other judges and attorneys use those unconstitutional rulings as precedents on which to base subsequent bad rulings. The rule of law thus crumbles, as the people affected by those bad decisions are harrowed, and as society falls farther under rule of the whims of self-important bureaucrats in contempt of constitutional law, rights, and the oath of office.
The bureaucrats have nothing much to say about the ubiquitous refusal to keep the oath, or to enforce constitutional law. The media might as well be on the official payroll. And the people seem to be paralyzed by fear, apathy, or ignorance, as the epidemic of official unwillingness to enforce constitutional law entrenches itself in every corner of America.
The rule of law is almost a thing of the past. Rumors rumble regarding unopened indictments that are celebrated by those who hope for the now proverbial swamp to be drained. But those are federal issues. Local swamp denizens continue to violate at will without having to fear (let alone face) consequences for malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance.
Rule of law seems to be the most anachronistic of the age-old principles. As respect for its importance to the stability of civil society wanes, it is replaced more and more with contempt for rule of law, contempt for rights, and contempt for people.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/as_the_rule_of_law_dissipates.html
