The Rule of Law

A nation needs democratic policing and the “rule of law.” Before I can expand on this, it needs to be explained briefly about the relationship between democratic policing and the rule of law. A lot of countries we call democracies, in fact are not democracies. First example is the United States. The U.S. is a constitutional republic – which in fact is based on “rule of law.” The constitution is the law of the land and it is not just popular vote that determines law(s) but the constitution itself.

Democratic policing is based on the basic principle to protect and serve the citizens. If there is any concept about democratic policing you need to get – that is it. Now to protect and serve must be done in the framework of the law. The law of the nation is what is of utmost importance to the police. After that is considered, then things like accepted international standards can be considered. What exactly is an accepted international standard? On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Some of these rights include:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

These can be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN.

Besides operating under the rule of the nation’s law(s), all police policies should be understandable and clear, precise, and available to the public. There are a lot of police from countries that are not used to transparency that this is where they have the biggest problem. They are so accustomed to back door deals and meetings behind closed doors that affect the police and police officers that operating with a sense of transparency is totally foreign to them. Personally, it is this part of democratic policing that is the hardest to get international police from countries that do not practice democratic policing to understand and teach this basic concept.

Police policies should be clear and concise. This is important for two reasons. First and foremost, the officer needs to understand the policies. These policies are threefold:

To protect the citizens
For Police to understand proper procedures
To protect the police officers themselves.

If the officer cannot understand the policies then these policies are useless. Also, the citizens have a right to know about police policies and under what guidelines do they work. They will have a better understanding of why officers act in the manner in which they carry out their duties. Whenever the citizens have access to this information they feel more at ease understanding the role and duties of the police. Also this can act as an oversight itself, if the citizens can understand the policies; they can make suggestions as to how police can be more responsive to them.

Will Chrysler’s Bankruptcy Uphold the Rule of Law?

The President recently announced that despite the Government’s best effort to save Chrysler from bankruptcy, greedy bondholders are forcing a bankruptcy because they want a better deal. Once again, the President mischaracterized reality to suit his own political agenda. He claimed that certain bondholders refused to make sacrifices that other stakeholders did. He did not tell us that those bondholders were put off by the fact that the Government proposal offered them less than 30 cents on the dollar, some $2 billion in cash for their nearly $7 billion investment, with no equity stake in the new company. He also conveniently omitted that the autoworkers union (UAW) would receive half of the value owed it in stock of the new company and would become New Chrysler’s majority stakeholder. Does it really make sense to reward the guys (the union) who significantly contributed to Chrysler’s demise in the first place by giving them such a huge stake in the new company? Isn’t it just a bit sneaky to completely ignore the fact that in bankruptcy bondholders would be among the first to be paid and probably walk away with substantially more than 30 cents on the dollar-value of their investment?

The major issue isn’t the obvious unfairness or idiocy of that proposal. It is about the Government using its discretion to change the way business is done America. Politics clearly played a key role in formulating the Government’s proposal to save Chrysler. The autoworkers union and others were a significant factor in electing President Obama and it is obvious that he was attempting to reward them for their support. It will be interesting to see if those politics play a part in structuring a deal in bankruptcy. If it does, the deal’s ramifications will extend well beyond its impact on the parties to the struggling automaker.

American business thrives because it relies on the rule of law and the sanctity of private property rights and private contracts. Throughout our history, through thick and thin, that system and its precedents have provided a framework of predictability, certainty and impartiality to the way business is done here. It has also been a major reason why foreigners and Americans alike would rather do business in America than anywhere else on the planet.

The world’s major governments were justified in intervening in private industry in an unprecedented manner during past two years in order to save our global financial system. However, they may have now overstayed their welcome. Either way, America will need to know how Government intends to proceed going forward. The Government has already become ensconced in our financial system and because of its demonstrated ad hoc and lacking management approach, there is a growing reluctance among private investors to collaborate with it to recapitalize the banks. Investors are quite rightly concerned that submitting to an investment program where our Government changes or makes up the rules as it goes along presents risks that outweigh even the most attractive of returns expected from the public-private partnership to purchase toxic assets from the banks. It is also clear that the Obama administration plans to replicate its onerous management format in order to play a major role in our energy industries and healthcare system going forward. You can bet those efforts will be met with a similar lack of enthusiasm, skepticism and confusion by the private sector.

The Obama administration may truly believe it is implementing change we can believe in, but it is rapidly becoming change Americans cannot invest in.

The ‘Rule of Law’ Promotes Liberty or Fosters Tyranny – It All Depends

Often you hear that we are ruled by laws – not by men. That implies the laws are just and protect our liberty, whereas men (and women) rule when opportunity arises to their own interests with disbenefit to others. But, of course, laws are continually created and modified by men and women to serve their interests. So, bad laws that can tyrannize some people are to be expected.

Then, when is the ‘rule of law’ promoting liberty and not fostering tyranny? It does so when it secures our unalienable rights through court processes that preserve them for each of us.

The freedom that we seek is really liberty. Liberty is freedom restrained and preserved through law. It guarantees our unalienable rights (our liberties) which are self-evident ‘rights’ embedded in the psyche of man. They arise from his nature and are unchanging.

America’s Declaration of Independence founded the U.S. as a government whose purpose is to secure the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and happiness for each of us. These include one’s right to self-determination, to own property, to parent his child, to pursue whatever profession or enterprise he wishes, among others.

The laws which a country devises are man-made laws so they are subject to the whims, interests, and errors of those that form the laws and the rules by which they’re carried out. Good laws are those that secure the unalienable rights for each of us. But the power of special interest groups can often pervert laws jeopardizing or denying rights of some.

Bad laws were expected by our founding fathers who were tyrannized by England’s treatment of them as colonials. They also recognized that laws deteriorate over time as special interest groups grow too much in influence and control within governmental affairs.

Seeking to guarantee our rights against the government, the founding fathers created the Bill of Rights (now complemented by further amendments) which purported to express some of our rights and restrict government infringement of them. Such rights are not subject to be voted down; they’re to be secured only. They make us a republic and not a pure democracy subject to tyrannical factions.

We each confront the laws of our land when we go to court either as a defendant against the state or as a litigant in a civil suit. So courts are where the ‘rubber meets the road’ – i.e. where you find out if your government is securing your inalienable rights or not. It’s the judicial system with its rules and processes that determine if your rights are protected – or not.

*Right to trial by informed jury as protection against corrupt judicial processes and bad laws:

Because of judiciary’s unique position of authority over the laws and its rules, the founding fathers believed it to be most vulnerable to perverting the meaning of good laws and forging bad processes under their own or others’ special interests. To counter the exclusive control of the judiciary by the judicial elite, a trial by an informed jury was built into the Bill of Rights even where only a substantial sum of money was at stake in a trial.

The jury was the public’s way of participating in the judicial process as a protection against judicial perversions or the bad laws it tries to enforce. The jury is considered ‘informed’ because it had the right not only to judge the truth or falsity of the evidence, but find the defendant innocent despite the evidence if they considered the law unjust or unfair.

Thomas Jefferson considered that guaranteeing an informed jury for trials was the only way yet known to man to preserve the principles of the constitution against bad laws and a perverted judiciary. Some even considered the right to an informed jury more important to preserving our liberty than the right to vote.

*Incorporating the Maxims of law promotes truth, justice and fairness in courts:

Since it’s in the court and its processes where your rights are in jeopardy, it’s important that those processes and judgments reflect and incorporate those self-evident truths that we all know should apply. These are called Maxims of law.

The job of the Maxims is to bring out the truth of the matter. That’s because without truth you can’t have justice. And without justice, you can’t have liberty. So where the Maxims are ignored, the court is denying justice to a defendant or a litigant.

*What function do Maxims promote in Court processes?

Maxims:

– Promote truth by requiring only sworn testimony against a defendant or litigant and require that perjury be punished when evident.

– Don’t subject litigants to laws that are vague – not clear to exactly what’s required or due. Wrongs must be clearly wrong to reasonable persons – not made up whims of special interest groups

– Require clear and convincing proof for wrongs done – not accusations and preconceived victims and perpetrators

– Recognize that litigants’ motives often determine the nature of their testimony

– Imposes no punishment or obligation where no wrong is done

– Matches obligations and the benefits that accompany them to the same litigant

– Assures the legal processes that benefit one person are not denied to another person.

It’s hard to believe that there are courts that ignore such self-evident requirements to help promote fair judgments. But there are.

*Does the rule of law you’re living under mean liberty or tyranny?

Courts are where our rights are in jeopardy – where our unalienable rights are secured or not. Their position of final authority on what’s legal – versus what’s right and just – makes them dangerous to litigants and the principles of liberty.

Those who would tyrannize some while benefiting others, will do so through the judiciary and those court processes that exclude informed juries, ignore the Maxims of law, and enforce legal excuses that profess to be a greater good than our unalienable rights.

Now you can recognize if you’re tyrannized or receiving justice according to the ‘rule of law’ you’re subject to.

Shane Flait gives you the capability you need to fight for your rights.

Why Am I Still Struggling For Money When I Know the Rules of Law of Attraction?

Are you struggling with using the Law of Attraction to attract money into your life? Each time you try to read about Law of Attraction and maybe have a little success and go towards the wealth consciousness point, you find yourself going backwards? Are you ready to learn what the key is to turning this around for yourself?

Why when I know the Law of Attraction rules am I still struggling for money – yes I find it difficult to ‘think’ I have it when I don’t. – From Sally.

I know many of you can identify with this one. The reason why you are struggling is that you may know the rules of Law of Attraction but you really don’t know them. If you did then you would have the money right? Intellectually you know that what you think and feel attracts what you want. However, you do the total opposite which is worry about money and bills.

Imagine your subconscious mind set on a dial that says “poverty consciousness” and you want it on “wealth consciousness”. Each time you try to read about Law of Attraction and maybe have a little success and go towards the wealth consciousness point, you find yourself going backwards. Your subconscious is programmed to go back to the poverty consciousness. That is why so many people struggle with money issues. It’s a program that has a set point to fail. I know because I was there for many years and I tried everything; and nothing seemed to work until I took a quantum leap.

The quantum leap for me was making a conscious decision that I want to get unstuck and change. I told myself I was going to do whatever it took because I was sick of going through another year figuring out where I went wrong. I had to breakdown before I could make a breakthrough. The best thing I did was hire a coach, along with getting into a program that allowed me to manifest things in a way that I had never experienced! The wild thing is that once it happened I never looked back and my old poverty thinking was a distant memory of the past. The key was seeing what beliefs I had about money and my business that was keeping me stuck.

Let’s say you are telling your friends that you have an amazing business and you will be super successful… how would that make you feel right now? If you start to feel your stomach go in or an unpleasant sensation in your body – then you know you have a belief that is not serving you.

In order to change that belief… you have to be uncomfortable because it is what is required to take a quantum leap. You also may find as you make a decision to change that everything around you is crumbling. This is actually good news, because it’s just a phase. The secret is that you need to push through this and hold on to ride this out, otherwise you will find yourself going back to your poverty consciousness mindset because it is familiar to you.

I have helped so many entrepreneurs make this shift and yes they went through the same thing. Ask yourself this question… what is going to change for me if I don’t do something now? Answer – NOTHING. You have no time to waste and now is the time to step up and step into the life that you deserve.

The Rule of Law and the 2008 US Transition

The rule of law is taken for granted everywhere in 2008, even in areas of the world where breaking the law seems more the norm than applying it. In the United States, the Constitution is the highest law of the land, followed by federal, state and local laws formulated on the basis of that first document.

At the international level, treaties, conventions and other such compacts form the basis of agreements on the applicability of laws. Those include bilateral, multilateral and regional arrangements.

Largely since the founding of the League of Nations at the end of the First World War, international conventions have also set standards for lawful conduct at the worldwide level. Those include the 1946 Geneva Conventions adopted when the United Nations replaced the failed League following the catastrophic Second World War. Based on an earlier Geneva Conventions governing the use of arms in warfare, the Geneva Conventions established the precedent for humane treatment of humans even when countries waged war.

The 1946 Geneva Conventions have been universally adopted, meaning all countries have accepted those basic standards for respect of human dignity under the harshest conditions. Additional protocols to the Conventions adopted in 1967 and 1977 set down further ground rules for protecting civilians and international representatives such as diplomats during wartime.

Since 1946, over 200 such conventions have been adopted by the United Nations and accepted by countries through the ratification process, just as the United States Constitution was accepted by the 13 original states of the American colonies. Those conventions advance the progressive development of international law and the rule of law in every area of human activity from nuclear arms to the protection of children and to the advancing of rights for workers, migrants, children and minorities.

That progressive development of international law is primarily in the hands of the United Nations Legal Committee and the International Law Commission, which works with the United Nations and governments to identify areas in need of regulation. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law does the same for commerce. The Commission elaborates legal instruments and model laws for countries to adopt and incorporate into national Constitutions and legislation so as to become part of the global mainstream marketplace. Intellectual property rights and electronic trade law are within the Commission’s domain.

Signing on to a treaty and then failing to respect its provisions carries a range of consequences. In the case of international treaties, sanctions range from economic boycotts to public censures and legal actions through the developing global court system.

The Hague-based International Court of Justice established in 1946, for example, considers disputes between countries. It hands down decisions and then leaves settlement of the dispute to the countries involved. The process is laborious but not much more so, relatively speaking, than executing a law suit in the United States Court system. The new International Criminal Court established in 2002 but not yet accepted by the United States is now charged with prosecuting crimes against humanity, including genocide.

Declarations are precursors to treaties. They set down principles on which countries agree. The 50-year-old Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example, states that all people are created equal, just as the United States Constitution first affirmed in 1776. The Declaration, however, was an update of the United States Constitution to the evolved status of the world’s level of civilization in the twentieth century. The Declaration also stated that no one shall be subjected to torture and everyone has the right to recognition as a person before the law.

Furthermore, the United States became a party to an international Convention against Torture in 1990. The lengthy title of that compact is The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The United States has also signed on to related international conventions such as those against illegal detentions and disappearances.

Despite all that, in December of the US transition year, the United States Vice President defended his role in expediting the use of such techniques at Guantanamo Bay. Further, he said there was ample precedent for such “robust” interrogation techniques, including methods used by Lincoln and Roosevelt, two presidents long dead before the Declaration and the Convention were adopted.

The global financial system is in chaos during the long 2008 US transition from a conservative, retrogressive system to a radical new positioning of the United States in a global world. The developing hold of the rule of law against disorder and chaos is a big part of the change from one system to the next.

The need to further develop international law in the area of commerce is clear. Regulatory deficiencies have been obvious since the Enron scandal and the Keating Five savings and loans debacle before then. But the rule of law so central to commerce in 2008 is a by-product of its role in safeguarding the dignity of humanity and a humane society in and of itself.

The elimination of impunity is a cornerstone of the rule of law. Crudely stated, it means perpetrators of crimes and the violators of agreements don’t get away without legal accountability.

As America slogs through a dismal end-of-year holiday season during its transition, the real meaning of the change becomes clear. The outgoing administration has damaged a progressive country and continues to do so through its midnight legislations inhibiting rights in all areas and promoting exploitation. Securing accountability for the past eight years must be made a priority.