Contempt for the rule of law

Wish I'd said that!

[Reprinted from Issues & Views August 6, 2001]

The reason baseball games end peaceably, and players and team owners are satisfied with the process, whether they win or lose, is that baseball rules (law) are known in advance; they are applicable to all players; they're fixed; and umpires don't make up rules as they go along. In other words, baseball rules meet the test of "abstractness." They envision no particular game outcome in terms of winners and losers. Baseball rules (laws) simply create a framework in which the game is played.

Laws or rules that govern a free society should have similar features. There should be "rule of law." Rule of law means that laws are certain and known in advance. Let's look at our country and ask whether we live under rule of law. Just about every law that Congress enacts violates all of the requirements for rule of law. How do we determine violations of rule of law? It's easy.

See if the law applies to particular Americans as opposed to all Americans. See if the law exempts public officials from its application. See if the law is known in advance. See if the law takes action against a person who has taken no aggressive action against another.

If you conduct such a test, you will conclude that it is virtually impossible to find a single act of Congress that adheres to the principles of the rule of law. That's the very reason lobbyists descend upon Washington and cough up the big campaign bucks. They want Congress to use its law-making power to grant them special privileges. But every indication I see, privilege granting is precisely what most Americans want, though they might disagree on who gets what privilege.

-- Walter Williams, syndicated columnist and Chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University (Fairfax, VA)

Copyright © 2008 Issues & Views