Free Markets, Free People

Quote of the Day: Rule of Law edition

From the inestimable Kevin Williamson:

When the law does not apply to the lawmakers and law-enforcers, you are not being governed: You are being ruled. And we are ruled by criminals. If you treat IRS rules the way the IRS treats IRS rules, you go to prison; if you treat federal law the way the secretary of state does, you go to prison. If you treat immigration controls the way our immigration authorities do, you go to prison. If you’re as careless in your handling of firearms as the ATF is, you go to prison. You cook your business’s books the way the federal government cooks its books, you go to prison.

If you believe that any of those who you’ve watched arrogantly refuse to follow the law are going to actually be prosecuted and pay the same penalty you would, you’ve not been paying close attention.  When’s the last time you saw any politician or bureaucrat with any real power frog marched off to jail?  When is the last time you actually saw one held accountable for their actions?

All of Williamson’s statements are true when applied to you and I.  I’ve always used the example of a numbers racket.  You run a numbers racket and you go to jail.  The government runs one and they call it “the lottery” – and, of course, it’s proceeds are “for the children” – so its ok if they do it.

Until we see scofflaws like Hillary Clinton and others actually held accountable by law and suffer consequences for breaking it, there’s no downside for politicians and bureaucrats who break or ignore the law.  And since there is no incentive right now for them to change and every incentive not too (in terms of increasing their control and power) we’re not going to see anything change.  They’ll just continue to abuse and disobey the law and dare us to do anything about it.  We’ll be treated to outrageous story after outrageous story (sort of what our fare has been for the last few years) and nothing will change.  In fact, you can count on those stories becoming even more frequent.

But “rule of law”?  That, apparently, is an old fashioned concept for our ruling elite and reserved only for the “little people”.  And they hang us high when they get the chance to keep the fear of government alive and ensure their control doesn’t slip.

We have a ruling elite, folks, and we need to hold them accountable in the most basic way – if we want to see a return of the “rule of law” for all, bring government under control and again have the politicians and bureaucrats serve us instead of rule us.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

22 Responses to Quote of the Day: Rule of Law edition

  • http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/09/the-obama-administrations-m855-ammo-ban-is-blatantly-lawless/

    I’ve suggested that its time to join in civil disobedience. ObamaDoggle was “passed” only in the sense that it violated every tenet of republican democracy and Congressional procedure.

    It since has been treated as the sole property of Pres. ScamWOW to slide here or there or totally suspend as he sees fit.

    We have a situation where our nation’s sovereignty is in suspension, again on ScamWOW’s whim, and our laws meaningless WRT immigration.

    This cannot stand, and we have an effective means to stop it.

    • It won’t work. The majority will happily cheer while you RACIST tea party wing nuts are dragged off to the jail cell you richly deserve.

      Not a single democrat will join you in protests. The media will crucify you. The free sh-t coalition and the LIVs and the SJWs will prevail to stop your message from getting out.

      • Unless they’re fighting a ban on plastic grocery bags, then by God we can get together and protest!

      • That’s just your pessimistic opinion. Mine differs, and for what are better reasons, I think.

        • It IS my pessimistic opinion true. Our reasons differ, true. Are yours better? I doubt it but I’ve been wrong before and will be again do who knows.

          What you propose ultimately only works when you’re dealing with fundamentally decent people. I don’t think you are. Ask Lois Lerner if you don’t get it.

          • “Decent people” is a highly subjective category.

            The British are quite “decent people”. They beat to death quite a few Indian civil disobedients, including women. I think…and sure hope…our own LEOs would be a good bit more decent than that to their fellow Americans.

            Are there risks? Sure. I like the cost/benefit ratio as I read it. It could pay off big. Nothing more drastic would be supportable until we’d tried it. Seems to me…

          • and sure hope…our own LEOs would be a good bit more decent than that to their fellow Americans.

            —– some would sure. All too many wouldn’t.

            By all means, try it if only so many what comes next can come with a clean conscience

      • What are you talking about? What do you stand FOR?
        We Tea Partiers are
        FOR your right to speak,
        For our Constitution,
        FOR borders and
        FOR your right to keep what you work for.

  • The last civil chance of reform will be a 3rd party when that is foiled then is road to revolution but I don’t hold much hope even for that. I’m betting on at least 300 years of chaos and squaller if external forces don’t come in and take over and make us guest workers in our own country.

    People need to acknowledge the corruption is on both side and they have prettymuch the same puppetmasters. Or there is no choice but generations of chaos and squaller.

    I do blame in large part the media for abandoning their roll as vanguards of the process in favor of choosing sides. I bet they prefer the corrupt politicians as they find them the most malleable under media pressure.

    • LOL “squaller”. It’s spelled “squalor”, friend, although I like your version better. Oh, and “roll” is spelled “role” in this context. You got “malleable” right, though.

      There is no chance for reform. A prison punk might as well talk about “reforming” his rapist. Nothing will be done about this situation. The American people don’t care. The average White Christian will put up with anything as long as ESPN is on the TV, gas is cheap, and the soft-serve machine is working down at the Golden Corral. Those of us who do care have mortgages and little kids and no time to be Wolverines.

      Only God can save us now. Instead of wasting time writing meaningless crap on the Internet, we ought to be on our bony knees begging Him to let us off the hook, again. In fact, I think I’ll take my own advice — right now.

  • This highlights a key difference between the left and the right. Generally speaking, the right regards the law as the way to promote an orderly and prosperous society. The left regards the law as an instrument to force other people to do what they want them to do.

    Thus lefties don’t think of themselves as subject to the law because they and their comrades are not the “other people” who need to be forced into compliance.

    • Their thoughts and motivations are always pure and their actions are always taken for the right reasons – of course the law need not apply to them, their purposes are above question or reproach.
      Why would ‘law’ even be involved?

      And you see what happens when the law, as written, is used to hinder them – they just extend, delay or otherwise ignores the laws to suit their purposes.

      Thus Obamacare is a tax, not a penalty, the signup deadlines for Healthcare are flexible, EPA rules on carbon, EPA rules on what constitutes waterways they have jurisdiction over, ATF outlaws ammo types, Immigration can choose not to enforce policy, DOJ can choose not to prosecute, IRS can target people for thinking wrong thoughts, Treasury can send money to whomever and not account for it, executive orders for extra judicial execution of citizens, private emails may be used for public business to avoid regulation
      it goes on and on and on.

      The most lawless administration in my lifetime, possibly in the history of the nation.

    • That’s brilliantly stated, Sir! (your 3/9 posting)

  • Now, however, the Democrats would like to discuss what they THINK the laws say, or ought to say, about a portion of the Senate explaining to the government of Iran about how long term treaties work with foreign powers under the Constitution.

    It’s sedition, or treachery, or something, to advise Iran on how our government is supposed to operate, or operated prior to the coronation of his highness Barack Obama the 2nd.

    I’ll bet Hillary is blessing the name of Tom Cotton right about now.

    • On a similar note, there’s an article over on Politico “Was the GOP’s Iran Letter really unprecedented” The libs are going nuts in the comments calling the 47 Senators traitors and such.

      Out of the goodness of my heart, I reminded them that their esteemed late Senator Ted Kennedy once attempted to conspire with the Soviets to undermine Reagan’s foreign policy with the Soviets and even asked them to intervene in the 1984 election.

      Needless to say, it didn’t go over very well. 🙂

      • Given their general ignorance of the Constitution and the entire premise that they think allows Obama to rule by executive fiat, which the subservient Senate must then rubber stamp, I’m not surprised.

        Perhaps the Senate 47 should have first sent a letter to many of their fellow Democratic Senators, the State Department, the White House, and the media before they sent one to Iran warning them how ephemeral their treaty with Defender of the Faithless, Barack Hussein Obama 1st might be.

        We’re back to the meaning of ‘advice and consent’, again.
        Now I understand if the illiterate btards over at ABC relied on Cotton’s web site to understand the word ratify, but they should perhaps look at the spare wording of the actual Constitution and then look up the commonly accepted meaning of ‘ratify’.

        Article 2, Section , paragraph 2.
        “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

        Ratify – to make official by signing it OR VOTING FOR IT

        Why are these people so insistent on being so stupid.
        Then again, we are talking about people who’s defense against illegal behavior is “Johnny did it too!”, and “We all do it”, and people who will parse the meaning of the word “is”.

        Having read the actual letter, I’d love to hear what Psaki over at State has in mind when she says there are several inaccuracies in it, seemed pretty accurate to me – if the Senate doesn’t ratify the treaty, it’s just an executive agreement, and the next President can undo it the same way Barack the 1st created it, with the stroke of a pen.
        Unless she means the part where Barack the 1st can only serve 2 four year terms or something.

      • LOL! Senators reminding folks of their Constitutional powers = “Treason!” because GOP.

        Private citizen John Kerry meeting with North Vietnamese communists = “Patriotism!” because Democrat.

        Got it.

        • There is evidence to suggest Kerry was not a private citizen at the time, but still a commissioned officer in the Navy.

  • At certain military bases the men’s rooms are strategically adorned with the image of Jane Fonda – upon which many a serviceman has gone out of his way to relieve himself after much liquid refreshment.

  • “If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” 1928 Louis Brandice.
    The supreme court was warned and has since become the law breaker and the whole government has joined in this criminal enterprise.

  • THE FEDERALIST NO 57
    by James Madison
    * * *
    I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America- a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.
    If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.