Rule of Man vs. Rule of Law – President Obama is a free man’s worst nightmare [Reader Post]

Loading

The United States Constitution is a unique document. It is the foundation for how the federal government is structured and sets the basis for the relationship between the federal government, states and citizens. In what might be a surprise to most Americans, the Constitution does not confer rights on them. Their rights are bestowed by the Creator as detailed in the Declaration of Independence, the document that established the United States of America in the first place:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

What the Constitution does is prohibits the government from infringing upon those rights. Nor does the Constitution articulate all of the rights that citizens have. The 9th Amendment of the Bill of Rights states as much very clearly:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What made the Constitution of the United States unique was the fact that for the first time in human history there was a written constitution that clearly defined the powers the national government had, and most importantly, clearly articulated the limits to that power.

Implicit in that Constitution is the concept called the Rule of Law. The 10th Amendment makes clear that the powers of the federal government are limited to those delegated in the document:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And therein lies the problem. The United States is supposed to be a nation ruled by laws, not by men. As Hayek explains in The Road to Serfdom:

“Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principle know as the Rule of Law. Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand — rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one’s individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge”

In other words, for a free country to exist, men’s actions must be taken in the presence of previously established, well defined and clearly articulated laws. Otherwise his every move will be taken under the threat of potential illegality, arbitrarily imposed at the whim of those who have accumulated the most power.

I cover this basic Constitutional information simply to contrast it with actual actions of the current occupant of the White House. Our Constitutional Professor in Chief is either ignorant of the Constitution or simply feels like it does not apply to him. Regardless of the cause, today in the United States we are very much moving towards a Rule of Man and away from the Rule of Law.

Really? Some examples please…

There is the takeover of Chrysler. In a typical bankruptcy the secured debtholders get first dibs on the company’s assets. That is the way the law is written and that is the basis upon which secured lending takes place. President Obama threw out the rule of law and coerced Chrysler’s secured debtholders into accepting $.29 on the dollar while paying his friends at the UAW $.40 on the dollar for their unsecured obligations, eventually giving them 55% of the company.

No doubt lenders will henceforth think twice about committing their resources to borrowers given the fact that government can come in and arbitrarily adjust their contracts.

Then there is the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB made news last year by illegally seeking to decide for Boeing where it could invest its money. The lawlessness of the board didn’t fall far from the tree… This January, President Obama, seeking to circumvent the Senate’s advise and consent role appointed 4 people to the NLRB via recess appointments despite the Senate being in pro-forma session. Pro-forma session? Certainly that must mean that the Senate was not really in session so no actual business could be done, right? Actually… Not according to the President. Just the previous week he was so sure the pro-forma session was real that he signed into law the payroll tax extension bill that was passed during such as session. Either pro-forma sessions are in session, or not, but they can’t be both. It’s like being pregnant, one either is or isn’t, you can’t be both. This is a perfect example of Rule of Man vs. Rule of Law. Unfortunately for the United States the Rule of Obama supersedes the Constitution in that battle.

There are many others but the most egregious is of course Obamacare. The Constitution clearly does not give the federal government the right to force consumers to purchase anything; not healthcare not Twinkies, not tooth paste, not even green cars. Despite that, Obama and his Reid / Pelosi led Congress decided to pass a law that does just that – purchase health insurance. If Uncle Sam has the right to force you to purchase health insurance under the threat of jail, then the Constitution becomes nothing but a relic of a once great nation that was once governed by the Rule of Law.

President Obama is a free man’s worst nightmare. Even for those foolish enough to support his statist, redistributionist, green policies. Why? Because he is the epitome of the Rule of Man. Rule of Man simply means that the person in control of the mechanism of government can do whatever he wants to do, and while it’s exercised by your guy that’s great, but what about when someone you disagree with gets into the position of power? Without the Rule of Law to guide and constrain government actions, a nation will quickly devolve into a tyranny of men. Not sure about that? At the Constitution’s bicentennial a quarter century ago could you have imagined that the government could dictate what you must feed your kids for lunch, could require you to buy anything at all simply because you’re alive or force churches to provide contraception or abortion benefits? I don’t think so.

Welcome to the Rule of Man. We’ve seen this play itself out before, where someone comes to power legitimately and then manipulates the rules to give themselves virtually unlimited power. That’s how Hitler did it. That’s how Chavez did it. That’s how Putin’s doing it again. Can you imagine a Barack Obama unfettered by the concerns of seeking a second term? One shudders to think…

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hi Vince, great post, and one that deals with a subject very much on my mind lately, considering the actions of our federal government during Obama’s presidency.

The Rule of Law vs. the Rule of Men is very distinct in the comparison of the two, and one needs to look no further back than Obama’s term thus far to see exactly how the Rule of Men is accomplished. I happened to read another article today that deals with a very similar subject matter. At American Thinker, in a posting yesterday, Larrey Anderson penned an article that although somewhat hard to read, uses an avowed communist’s own words to explain how a socialistic society differs from a democracy regarding one particular attribute.

Even Alexander Kojeve, a french philosopher, and devout Marxist, knew that in order to achieve the objectives of a fair and just society, that a means of establishing an objective third party is necessary. This objective third party, in the case of the US, is the Constitution.

From the article;

Let us assume that there is one person acting as governor for this one-world state. How do we determine if the governor is acting as an impartial third party or if he is acting from personal interest? According to Kojève there is one, and only one, way to determine if the governor has acted as a disinterested third party:

Now it is clear that one cannot rule [decide]…by scrutinizing the intention of the Governor, if only because he may be acting “in good faith” — that is, he can be mistaken in his intentions and believe that he is acting as a citizen in the name of the state. One must have an objective criterion. And this criterion is given by the Constitution…. If the Governor acted at odds with the Constitution, this means he acted as an imposter, according to personal interests….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/taking_socialism_seriously.html

The fact of the matter is that without a standard by which a law, rule, or directive can be compared to, then the particular law, rule, or directive doesn’t matter and the issuer of such can impose their will on others, whether it be in the workplace, in public, or originating in DC to affect all of our lives. The founding fathers gave us that standard when they wrote, voted on, and the states ratified the US Constitution. As you stated, never before in the history of the world was a document put forth, at the creation of the country, explicitly limiting what that government COULD do until our Constitution was written.

The problem that we are facing now, with Obama and his millions of “worshipers”, is that to them, the “ends justify the means” is a motto to live by. In so doing, they justify their actions based not on whether or not that action is Constitutional, but rather, on the resultant of that action. And to do this, they basically throw the Constitution out the window and make up their own rules. The Rule of Men is alive and well in DC at this moment, and all you will get from the Obama worshipers is loud applause, no matter what he, or his liberal WH, does.

Early documents, like the Constitution and Declaration of Independents, were written with the Founders mindset. For example, they believed in a Creator—which is still believed by the majority of this country—although many of them did not believe in the Judeo-Christian scenario. The sooner we start viewing some of the descriptions of these documents in figurative terms, instead of religious ones, the sooner we’ll be able to consummate the rights of men and women, in this country—which a minority religious element has always sought to curtail (unfortunately with some success).

Thanks, Vince.
King Zero is the latest in a long list of Utopian Dreamers. Throughout history, men and women of inflated self-worth have imposed their personal versions of the world on a hapless slave population. You can consult Plato for many of the earlier dreamers. Plato, himself, had grand visions of Utopia.
Alas for the dreamers: to date, no Utopia has survived for long. Thousands have begun, most are gone. Utopias continue today in Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, Iran, and others. Recent death certificates have been written out for the former Utopias of the USSR, Yugoslavia, El Salvador, and Cambodia. The ink is not yet dry on Syria.
The notion of Utopia is one which will not die. Every generation brings with it another crop of “intellectuals” who are willing to imbue a “state” with god-like powers. And every new incarnation of “state” brings with it the subjugation of the individual, and the grinding of the noses of all (except for the pigs, who sleep in beds) in the dirt. [See Animal Farm if you don’t know about the pigs.]
We have a new one, King Putt. Appointer of Czars. Politician who never made a promise worth keeping. Great Divider. Author of misery. Able to disrespect a group, then continue to receive its support (Jews, Catholics, Unions). Shrewd manipulator of numbers–unemployment too high? Just delete a large group as no longer counted. Mortgages failed? Just force banks to devalue them. Taxes too high? Raise them while claiming to lower them.
And, above all: “trust me.”
Alas for Robert Heinlein. He warned us about this. Alas for Thoreau. He also warned us. Alas for Hayek, de Toqueville, Montesqu, and all the others.
Come on, Aces. 2%. That is what Einstein said. It takes 2% to change something. 2% aroused and angry, seeking a return to our Constitution, will do the trick.
Let’s find them.

@Liberal1
Instead of reading the “descriptions of these documents in figurative terms” try reading the actual documents. None of the laws of the US require a belief in God.
I’m curious, do you also call yourself a Progressive?

Here is some good news for poll believers:
Poll: Americans Blame Obama For Craptastic Economy Over Congress By Huge 61% – 21% Margin…

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/02/23/poll-americans-blame-obama-for-craptastic-economy-over-congress-by-huge-61-21-margin/

VINCE
GOOD EXPLICIT POST available to the CROWD where ever they are, to help them choose the right path and vote to get the responsible for so much out of work, and so much angry people getting ready to do what is the best to save AMERICA,
THANK YOU

Hey Bees…I know you’re into comment numbers so just an fyi, your last comment was the 170,000th comment on this blog.

CURT
hi
thank you for the info, and I MUST TELL YOU THAT I found the comments returned to me after I answered for the last 2 days did come but not in my inbox as usual, they where in the SPAM where I happen to go there by accident and there was 42 comments, wow
and CURT IF I abuse the priviledge of commenting too much, please let me know, you know how much I love FLOPPING ACES. I feel better to now have found the comments I knew where not in my inbox,
and I left you a note, but it was GOOGLE ERROR AND i ask them to fix it, bye
yes I might over comment sometimes ,just restrain me if I do
I never thought I had such a big mouth
bye

LOL! Ms. Bees, it’s not you, personally, who made 170,000 comments. That’s the comments on the FA blog database.

You’re only responsible for 7,454 of them. :0)

MATA
even a tenth of it is quite a lot for me, I bet you got more than that ,
may I ask how many?

MATA
funny, I’m in numbers today, I was working in my tax forms, I wonder why they give us equations like ; multiply that number by 9.1 %, on some, I hate it, I can’t find the gadget for calculation I pack away when I moved,
and did the l by head, I should say dum head, but I did it.
bye