This is a good explanation of the theory behind the "rule of law" as we know it today. In fact, it is an excellent set of points which shows how clearly off the United States is from the "rule of law, not men" that is so often claimed.
The sovereign immunity enjoyed by the police and many other government agents is one of the many assaults on the rule of law. By allowing them "good faith" protection when they injure private citizens or damage their property in the performance of their duties, the law and courts have carved out a special class of citizen which is not routinely held to the same standards as the rest of society, let alone accountable to the general law itself, in many cases.
The civil asset forfeiture laws, which allow the government to seize property with minimal due process protection also serve to undermine the rule of law by depriving private citizens of a constitutional presumption of innocence, adequate means to fund their defense in criminal proceedings, and empowering the police to carry out a punishment under the guise of a different type of proceeding. These laws and the precedents which support them allow the government to seize large amounts of cash carried on a private citizen on the assumption that the cash is to be used for a crime, and they do not require a trial to prove the matter.
Hate crime laws, while not inherently an attack on the rule of law, are in practice an attack on the rule of law because they are enforced without consideration for equality or consistency. Setting aside the philosophical issues regarding the merits of punishing crimes in part on the motive, the fact that hate crime arrests and prosecutions are highly politically driven is inherently problematic. This also serves to provide an example of how the government's monopoly on bringing criminal charges undermines the rule of law. Government prosecutors are generally quick to bring hate crime charges against whites who victimize minorities, but not the other way around. In fact, it is extremely rare to ever see that sort of prosecution, no matter how blatant the violation of the law.
The laws, policies and precedents which restrict the right of self-defense are onerous and dangerous to the rule of law in that they are neither something that a reasonable person can abide by, nor are they something which the courts show mercy on when violated. For example, in many states private citizens must retreat before enjoying the right of self-defense, regardless of the violence being prepared against them. In other cases, private citizens do not enjoy a right of self-defense against the police when being placed under arrest for reasons incompatible with the law, or when the police either use unnecessary levels of violence or raid the wrong house. If the police show up at your door to execute a warrant for a drug dealer that used to live there, and you shoot at them thinking that they are criminals, you have no legal claim to the right of self-defense. That is completely unreasonable.
These examples, and the general point of the post could be accused of making the adequate the enemy of the good, or the good the enemy of the perfect (depends on how much you respect the system). On the surface that may appear to be true, but generally that charge is used as a means of defending an imperfect system or approach from reform or scrutiny. It's like the charge that people should just lay off the state of government and laws because we're better than China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba or Russia. That may well be true, but it's an invitation to more decline to be satisfied with your mess because it is less of a mess than someone else's mess.
I am enough of a cynic to have no expectation that the myriad flaws in the legal system will ever be meaningfully addressed because that's not sexy and it doesn't win elections. No one won an election in the United States by promising to focus on writing legislative patches to fix the buggy code of our legal system rather than grafting on "new features." A politician that promised to focus his or her efforts on debugging the law and processes would be greeted with the same sort of acceptance that a circus freak would get at a country club.
The sovereign immunity enjoyed by the police and many other government agents is one of the many assaults on the rule of law. By allowing them "good faith" protection when they injure private citizens or damage their property in the performance of their duties, the law and courts have carved out a special class of citizen which is not routinely held to the same standards as the rest of society, let alone accountable to the general law itself, in many cases.
The civil asset forfeiture laws, which allow the government to seize property with minimal due process protection also serve to undermine the rule of law by depriving private citizens of a constitutional presumption of innocence, adequate means to fund their defense in criminal proceedings, and empowering the police to carry out a punishment under the guise of a different type of proceeding. These laws and the precedents which support them allow the government to seize large amounts of cash carried on a private citizen on the assumption that the cash is to be used for a crime, and they do not require a trial to prove the matter.
Hate crime laws, while not inherently an attack on the rule of law, are in practice an attack on the rule of law because they are enforced without consideration for equality or consistency. Setting aside the philosophical issues regarding the merits of punishing crimes in part on the motive, the fact that hate crime arrests and prosecutions are highly politically driven is inherently problematic. This also serves to provide an example of how the government's monopoly on bringing criminal charges undermines the rule of law. Government prosecutors are generally quick to bring hate crime charges against whites who victimize minorities, but not the other way around. In fact, it is extremely rare to ever see that sort of prosecution, no matter how blatant the violation of the law.
The laws, policies and precedents which restrict the right of self-defense are onerous and dangerous to the rule of law in that they are neither something that a reasonable person can abide by, nor are they something which the courts show mercy on when violated. For example, in many states private citizens must retreat before enjoying the right of self-defense, regardless of the violence being prepared against them. In other cases, private citizens do not enjoy a right of self-defense against the police when being placed under arrest for reasons incompatible with the law, or when the police either use unnecessary levels of violence or raid the wrong house. If the police show up at your door to execute a warrant for a drug dealer that used to live there, and you shoot at them thinking that they are criminals, you have no legal claim to the right of self-defense. That is completely unreasonable.
These examples, and the general point of the post could be accused of making the adequate the enemy of the good, or the good the enemy of the perfect (depends on how much you respect the system). On the surface that may appear to be true, but generally that charge is used as a means of defending an imperfect system or approach from reform or scrutiny. It's like the charge that people should just lay off the state of government and laws because we're better than China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba or Russia. That may well be true, but it's an invitation to more decline to be satisfied with your mess because it is less of a mess than someone else's mess.
I am enough of a cynic to have no expectation that the myriad flaws in the legal system will ever be meaningfully addressed because that's not sexy and it doesn't win elections. No one won an election in the United States by promising to focus on writing legislative patches to fix the buggy code of our legal system rather than grafting on "new features." A politician that promised to focus his or her efforts on debugging the law and processes would be greeted with the same sort of acceptance that a circus freak would get at a country club.
Good examples. This administration has provided a lot more.
1. Establishment of 31 "czars". Appoiinted presidential staff that do not have to submit to Senatorial confirmation and have duties and powers not granted by congressional statute or subject to oversight like the entire rest of the cabinet.
2. Promises made to foreign governments that are defacto treaties without Senate confirmation.
3. The creation of "fill in the blank" laws (climate change) where the details will be written later. Just pass it now.
4. Unrestricted priveledge of civil contempt charges to indefinitely imprison people without trial, due process, or even a criminal statute to back up the offense..
#4 is an excellent example, and I wish that I had remembered that the government gave itself that authority. It's a totalitarian measure in no small part because the government can claim that you know or can do something which you then have to disprove. Your failure is then axiomatically unwillingness in the eyes of the law, thus your failure to do what you cannot do or know is seen as a positive violation of the law. Whoever came up with that system deserves to burn in hell.
As I've said previously, but perhaps not here, I can't believe that I'm looking forward to collapse the way I used to watch for a good forest-fire: a time to purge the old, rotten growth and sprout new, healthy growth in its wake. Burn, baby, burn.