The Death of the Rule of Law: A Companion Guide to Guilty at Gunpoint

By Paul Singh

A companion to Guilty at Gunpoint, the Death of the Rule of Law  is a case study for law students interested in pursuing Criminal Law. It provides a candid look at what the future lawyers will be facing in the real world of criminal justice.

This is a must read for those who want to learn more

• Language: English
• Publisher: Science Literacy Books
• Release date: Feb 1, 2019
• ISBN: 9781949454147

Book preview

INTRODUCTION

THIS BOOK IS A CASE STUDY FOR LAW STUDENTS AND ALL socially aware citizens who care about the Rule of Law. It is highly recommended that readers of this book simultaneously pay close attention to the Applicable Law Section in the main book, Guilty at Gunpoint to gain a comprehensive understanding of this case study. Reading the 24 Exhibits published at the end of this book, in isolation, without first reading Guilty at Gunpoint , and more specifically its legal section, Applicable Law may not make a great deal of sense to some of you who are not trained in the legal profession. Both books need to be read to connect the dots.

I’d like to begin this book with discussing the evolution of the Rule of Law in America—From its Affirmation to Erosion to Repudiation to Renunciation.

This brief history of the Rule of Law will describe what the Rule of law is, where it came from, and how and why it became radically degraded, eroded, and eventually eviscerated and abolished over time in recent decades of American history.

The rule of law is a rather simple concept. It means that we are all equally bound to a basic set of rules. The most important attribute of this concept according to contemporary and traditional legal scholarship is that nobody is above or below the law. The founding fathers, after a lot of bickering and resistance, unanimously agreed that a set of dictates, mandates, and rules were necessary that should be followed by everyone regardless of a person’s status. It didn’t matter if you were a property owner, then called the wealth of the nation or the working poor or a farmer.

Where did the very idea of the rule of law originate? Our founding fathers met in Philadelphia in a Convention Center in May of 1787 to secretly concoct a Constitution to protect the properties of the rich and the well-born (the words of Alexander Hamilton). The windows and doors were sealed, and the discussions were meant to take place in secret by these 51 merchants, bankers, and slave owners that we call our founding fathers. This convention lasted for five months until September of 1787. Little did the attendees know at the time that James Madison took notes of everything that was being said. Madison would retire to his room at the end of each day and transcribe his notes in a systematic manner, notes that are available today to all historians and the American public.

According to James Madison’s recordings, the constitution was a system intended to leave working people out of the loop. The working class was viewed as irresponsible and not to be trusted. These folks wanted to challenge the wealthy property owners they saw as being privileged. John Jay, the President of the Convention, stated that only those who own land should rule the country. He called the working class riff-raff who, given a chance, will challenge the property owners for their excesses. The term ‘property owner’ in the late 18th century referred to people with wealth and not necessarily someone who owned a piece of land.

The result of this convention was that an undemocratic constitution was born resulting in a kangaroo court run by the oligarchs until James Wilson and Benjamin Franklin from Pennsylvania, and Mason of Virginia stood up and objected. They warned that if the members intended to block out everything for the rich, excluding ordinary people altogether, then there would be resistance from colonies (states) to get this constitution ratified, because frankly, the colonies were not going to ratify such a Constitution. The founding fathers wanted to create a strong federal government to suppress rebellions of the working farmers seeking human rights for themselves, while the states were petrified by the idea of a powerful federal government that would squelch the rights of the poor and the middle-class Americans. The states did not want to live under another King George.

After this warning by James Wilson and Benjamin Franklin, pandemonium broke out in the convention with much fear-mongering done by those who stated that giving the riff-raff any rights to rule (i.e., democracy) would be dangerous and lead to a mob rule. Out of this struggle and disagreements was born the idea of giving people at least something, by creating a House of Representatives for them. Federalist paper # 10 by James Madison enlightens us about the discussions that took place in this regard. Despite the introduction of the idea of a House of Representatives for all Americans, the states continued to resist ratifying a constitution with no human rights incorporated into it for ordinary folks, which represented the largest part of the population. In response to this challenge, James Madison wrote the ten Amendments, which we later called the Bill of Rights, which were added to the Constitution to get it ratified by the states. The founding fathers did heed the warning after all. The powers granted to the federal government through the Founders’ original Constitution reminded the leaders of 13 colonies of King George’s imperial powers and tyranny in the form of a militaristic federal government run by the wealthy landowners and hence the resistance from the states.

The founding fathers were very comfortable with all kinds of inequalities, whether economic, political or social. The idea of introducing a bill of rights was that the absolute fundamental rights of equality before the law, called the rule of law, would be awarded to every citizen, that in turn, would have some equalizing effect giving unavoidable inherent inequalities some justification. Inequalities among people, considered a law of nature, have been philosophically debated as something that is inevitable since the time of Greeks, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, a part of human history that I am going to leave out of the discussion in my short explanation.

So, while the Constitution itself was as undemocratic as can be, the bill of rights, the crowning achievement of the American republic that became part of the Constitution, gave everyone without exception some rights of equity. This is where the distinction lies between equality and equity. We were not given equality but granted equity though the bill of rights. As far as the inspiring language of the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 that existed before the convention, it was written by the ‘wealth of the nation’ to rile up the masses to revolt against the British monarchy, with no real intention of giving any taste of democracy to average citizens who were willing to give up their lives to gain this new found freedom from monarchical tyranny.

The rule of law and the civil rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights were absolute, not subject to interpretation by the elite. These amendments were not dilutable or susceptible to compromise. The Bill of Rights drew a line in the sand that the ruling elite could not cross. The language used in these Amendments was absolute and unyielding, such as Congress shall make no law, etc. While the government could collect taxes, debate budget, define energy policy, and engage in wars, it could not mess with the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression, no seizure without a warrant, due process of law, and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. These principles were not subject to debate. This most essential attribute of American law was so radically different from all other political debates and issues that it became the source of national pride and identity that distinguished America from the rest of the world. We have used this rhetoric as the best propaganda tool for over 230 years to make it known to the rest of the world how America is different from many other forms of governments and regimes around the world. Our government can punish us for crimes, levy taxes on us, and discuss how issues can be debated in Congress, but it cannot violate these lofty principles listed in the Amendments to the Constitution. These principles safeguarded ordinary citizens against government powers, tyranny, and potential abuse of already unlimited authority we the people, the true sovereign, had granted to the federal government. These Amendments, restrictions, and constraints that the states placed on the federal government made America unique. They were a list of limitations that we put on the federal government in exchange for us to allow our elected government to govern us. This notion that the rule of law was an ideal to be pursued became part of our national pride and identity and we have not stopped bragging about it since the founding of our nation. It turned out that these rights were provided to us only on paper because throughout our history the ruling elite breached the Bill of Rights repeatedly as though these amendments were just a sore thumb that stood in the way of governance.

Although we, as a nation, repeatedly violated the rule of law, civil liberties and the bill of rights throughout our history, as was evident with slavery, mistreatment of American Indians, and few rights given to women, we had this lofty ideal which continued to be a source of aspiration and inspiration for the American people. This assumed principle of the rule of law was the very reason that our country expanded the rights of those who had once been oppressed, through activism for women’s suffrage, freedom from slavery, civil rights, employment rights, Medicare, social security, gay rights and so on and so forth. We invoked the Bill of Rights whenever there were human rights violations by the elite and we invoked these clauses enshrined in our Constitution to fight against the federal government’s corruption that always served the interests of the plutocrats.

What happened to the philosophical ideals that inspired us throughout the twentieth century? According to a Constitutional lawyer, Glenn Greenwald, whose views and understanding of legal U.S. history many respect, the erosion of this ideal started with Richard Nixon. Nixon was not tried for his admitted crimes, setting a precedent that some people are above the law and that the rule of law does not necessarily apply to everyone. That set the stage for a new set of rules since the 1980’s through which those with wealth and privilege could not be held responsible or punished for their crimes. Some of the most heinous crimes committed by the elite since then have gone unpunished, from war crimes of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to illegally detaining, mistreating and torturing prisoners and Muslims under the slogan of counter-terrosim or calling them enemy combatants instead of prisoners of war, which they are. Obama stole a march on everyone else as regards the rule of law. He started killing American citizens through drone strikes without any due process of law with the slightest suspicion that those who do not like America, might have broken some law. The hypocrisy of President Obama was stunning when he began to immediately violate the rule of law after making an election promise, my administration will be most transparent and follow the rule of law. These are Obama’s