The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Practicing What You Preach

In my article “The Rule of Law” I point out that without the Rule of Law, there can be no Justice. But the Rule of Law requires that several concepts and tenets be enforced for Justice to prosper. These concepts and tenets are “Etched in Stone”. The “Concepts” are; 1) Due Process, 2) Speedy Trial, 3) Presumption of Innocence, 4) Trial by Jury, 5) Burden of Proof on Prosecutor or Plaintiff, 6) No Burden on Defense. The “Tenets” are; 1) An Independent Judiciary, 2) Probable Cause, 3) Equality Under the Law, 4) Equal Protection of the Laws, 5) Pursuit of Justice, 6) Pardons and Commutations, 7) Full Faith and Credit, 8) Contract Law Enforcement. Without following these concepts there can be no Liberty, Freedom, and Justice for All.

Today, however, there appears to be no concern for these concepts and tenants in our political discourse and deliberations, especially by Progressives and Leftists, and most disconcerting the Democratic Party leaders. While these proceedings do not occur in a judicial process the concepts are applicable, as these concepts are needed to protect the Human and Constitutional rights of the person(s) involved. Some examples I have written about are in my Article “The Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings”.

Progressives and Leftists, and the Democratic Party leaders have been pontificating that “No one is above the law” when referring to President Trump. While this is true it should be remembered that “No one is below the law” in that all people, including the President, have Equality Under the Law and Equal Protection of the Laws, and that someone should not be judged any differently than any other person. Each person also has a "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights" that cannot be violated as I have outlined in my article of the same name. This means that the Rule of Law applies to every person within America.

Yet, the Progressives and Leftists, and the Democratic Party leaders, seem to ignore the Rule of Law with regards to many different situations. They include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Illegal Immigration Enforcement:
  To not enforce immigration laws is a violation of the Rule of Law. It also endangers the people of the United States in that it allows for the smuggling of drugs and other contraband, criminals and gang members to enter the United States, an increase of tax burdens to support these illegal immigrants, and burthens on the Judicial system to apprehend and prosecute illegal immigrants. To hamper or ignore immigration laws is to place illegal immigrants “Above the Law”.
  
• Sanctuary Cities and States
  To allow Sanctuary Cities and States is to skirt the enforcement of immigration laws. It also places a danger to the people of the United States from criminal activities of illegal immigrants. It also attracts illegal immigrants to these Sanctuary Cities and States which increases the tax burden to support or to prosecute criminal activities, of these illegal immigrants. Sanctuary Cities and States place illegal immigrants “Above the Law”.
  
• Marijuana Usage:
  The control and distribution of drugs is the responsibility of the Federal government. To contravene these laws through “Medical Marijuana Usage” is to usurp the Rule of Law. This statement is not about the benefits, nor the costs, of Marijuana usage, but only to examine the issue of a State or Locality to legislate the usage of Marijuana. In our Federal form of government, the Federal Laws have supremacy over State laws, and the State laws have supremacy over Local laws. To not have this hierarchy is to invite chaos. If you do not support this hierarchy then you cannot support the Rule of Law. It also invites the States or Localities to place themselves “Above the Law”. And if you allow this for Federal Marijuana laws then you can allow this for any Federal law.
  
• Violent Protests:
  If you physically harm a person or property you are a violent person. If you do so while demonstrating in a “peaceable assembly” and claim it as your right, you are also placing yourself “Above the Law” and violating the Natural and Human Rights of other persons, as I have elaborated in my Article "Natural, Human, and Civil Rights". We also have groups and individuals (both left and right) who believe that they should be able to prevent or disrupt a peaceable assembly. This too is a violation of the right to peaceably assemble. No group or individuals have the right to infringe on another’s group or individuals right to peaceably assemble. Most disconcerting is that the Democratic Party leaders are not forcibly condemning these actions. For if you are not condemning these actions then you are tacitly approving these actions. And if you are not encouraging and supporting law enforcement in arresting and prosecuting these violent acts you are placing these violent demonstrators “Above the Law”.
  
• Voting:
  Every citizen of the United States who is legally eligible to vote should be permitted to vote. And no impediment of their legal right to vote should be permitted as I have stated in my Observation “Political Issues - Voting“. Any person or persons who would impede a person’s vote needs to be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And all governmental laws, rules, regulations, and procedures should be crafted to assure a person’s legal right to vote. Without the integrity of the vote, you have corrupted the democratic process and the will of the people. Regarding this, a key phrase in the above statement of is “legally eligible to vote”. If a person is not legally eligible to vote they need to be stopped from voting. For if they are allowed to vote, then the vote they illegal cast negates the vote of a legally eligible voter on the opposite side of an issue or candidate, which effectively disenfranchises the legally eligible voter. And this violation should be treated as harshly as you would treat a person or persons who impedes a legal voter.
  
  Unfortunately, the Democratic Party seems to not be too concerned on the “legally eligible to vote”. They have hampered efforts to assure the legality of a voter. They often claim that this is to assure that there is no “Voter Suppression” occurring. But “Voter Suppression” is different than “legally eligible to vote”. They should concentrate their efforts to “Protecting Your Right to Vote” through appropriate legislation and enforcement. To not assure the “legally eligible to vote” is to allow for an unfair election and the corruption of the democratic process. It also places the illegal voter “Above the Law” in that they can violate the law by casting an illegal vote.
  
• Confirmation of Presidential Appointees:
  Judges and Executive Offices up for confirmation have been subject to innuendo and allegations that have not been substantiated but made public. This violates the Rule of Law as expounded in my Article “The Rule of Law in Non-Judicial Proceedings”. This can also lead to civil unrest on the part of all parties that feel aggrieved by this process. It also places the appointees “Below the Law” in that their legal and human rights are not protected.
  
• Judicial Lawsuit Interference in Legal Presidential Actions:
  In my Chirp “Executive Orders” I examine the misuse of Executive Orders to skirt the law. However, the excessive usage of lawsuits to delay or stop a lawful Executive Order is also an abuse of the Rule of Law and a misuse of the Judicial system. Those that file these lawsuits are attempting to circumvent the law and place undue burdens of the Executive Branch in enforcing the law. Judges who stay or declare illegal a lawful Executive Order are exceeding their authority under the Constitution and are intruding on the prerogatives on the Executive branch of government. In effect, those that initiate the lawsuits, and the Judges who allow this, are placing themselves “Above the Law “, in that they hamper the legal enforcement of the law.
  
• Exoneration as a Legal Principle:
  In my Chirp “To Exonerate or to Not Exonerate, That Is the Question” I examine the use of “Exoneration” in legal proceedings. Exoneration is not the job of our legal system and can be a very dangerous concept to The Rule of Law. Yet, the Progressives and Leftists, and the Democratic Party leaders, continue to claim that President Trump was not exonerated. In this, they are in conflict with the Rule of Law.

When pressed for the reason why the law should not be enforced the Democrats often resort to the excuses of; “Bad Laws”, “Prosecutorial Discretion”, “States Rights”, or “Humanitarian Concerns”. Yet these excuses are not valid excuses under the Rule of Law. If you don’t like the law than work to change the law or challenge the constitutionality of the law. You do not have the option to ignore a law you don’t like. For if you do ignore the law you do not have a civil society but anarchy. Prosecutorial Discretion is only valid for individual persons, as this prosecutorial power is not for groups of people but only for individual persons. To apply it a group of people is to ignore the law or to not enforce the law. It also allows the prosecutor to de facto issue “Reprieves and Pardons”, which is a Constitutional power reserved for the President of the United States. As to States Rights, the right of a State does not supersede the rights of the Federal government. If a State believes that the Federal government has intruded upon the State’s rights, they can challenge the Federal government in Federal courts, but they may not ignore Federal laws. Humanitarian Concerns need to be addressed in the formation and passage of Laws, not in the enforcement of laws. If Humanitarian laws are passed, then you will have Humanitarian enforcement of the law. To utilize Humanitarian Concerns to not enforce the law leads to unequal equality, and unequal protection, of the laws which is abhorrent to the Rule of Law.

To not enforce the law for the reasons specified is also undemocratic and unconstitutional. Unconstitutional in that it violates the separation of powers of the branches of government; Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, in that one branch or another of government can ignore the other branches duties and responsibilities. Undemocratic in that it leads to the unequal equality of the law, and unequal protection of the law. Therefore, the Democrat leadership is not practicing what they preach of “No One is Above the Law” by allowing for some laws to not be enforced and other laws to be enforceable. All laws need to be Constitutionally enacted and then enforced with the Rule of Law guiding the enforcement.

As can be seen from the above examples Progressives and Leftists, and the Democratic Party leaders, that have been pontificating that “No one is above the law” in fact believe that some are “Above the Law” and some are “Below the Law”. It appears that they wish to pick and choose those persons or groups that should be treated above or below the Rule of Law. This type of behavior is also known as “Hypocrisy”, and I suspect it is only done for political opportunism purposes.