I take the concept of the Rule of Law pretty seriously. After all, I swore the Federal law enforcement oath of office:
I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
The Constitution is the foundation for all US laws and regulations, which must be made 'in pursuance thereof'. If they're not in accordance with the Constitution, they're not valid. Period.
I've known for years that the supremacy of the Constitution has been under threat by ever-encroaching 'nanny state' and 'Big Brother' legislation. However, the Atlantic has just reminded us how badly it's been eroded. Its article is titled "America Fails the 'Rule of Law' Test".
The U.S. Army field manual defines "the rule of law" as follows: "The rule of law refers to a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency."
Going by that definition, the U.S. government does not operate according to the rule of law. A panel of former executive-branch employees, many of whom served in the U.S. military or the CIA, made this point bluntly in a recent report on drones. "Despite the undoubted good faith of US decision-makers, it would be difficult to conclude that US targeted strikes are consistent with core rule of law norms," they declared. "From the perspective of many around the world, the U.S. appears to claim, in effect, the legal right to kill any person it determines is a member of al-Qaida or its associated forces, in any state on Earth, at any time, based on secret criteria and secret evidence, evaluated in a secret process by unknown and largely anonymous individuals—with no public disclosure of which organizations are considered 'associated forces,' no means for anyone outside that secret process to raise questions about the criteria or validity of the evidence, and no means for anyone outside that process to identify or remedy mistakes or abuses."
Unfortunately, the U.S. government violates "rule of law" norms in other areas too.
There's more at the link.
Makes you think, doesn't it? The question is, what are we going to do about restoring the rule of law and doing away with institutions and individuals who stand in its way?