The Rule of Law

The Lindy Library

On the Enduring Rule of Law

The quiet drama unfolding in an immigration courtroom, where a judge declared a "speech-based deportation policy" to have no legal basis, offers a timely echo of a principle as ancient as civilization itself: the Rule of Law. It’s a concept that has stubbornly refused to fade, proving its utility across empires and ages, much like a well-worn book whose wisdom only deepens with time.

What exactly is this enduring rule? It’s not merely the existence of laws, nor even the idea that everyone should obey them. Rather, it’s the profound notion that no one is above the law – not the governed, and crucially, not the government itself. It posits that power, particularly governmental power, must be exercised according to established legal principles, not arbitrary whim or personal decree. It is, in essence, the rule of statutes and precedents, rather than the rule of men.

This idea didn't spring forth fully formed in a single moment. Its origins can be traced to the philosophical inquiries of ancient Greece. Thinkers like Plato, in his later works such as Laws, wrestled with the ideal state, eventually conceding that even the wisest ruler required the constraint of law to prevent tyranny. Aristotle, too, distinguished between a government ruled by good laws and one ruled by good men, arguing for the supremacy of the former. The Roman Republic, with its intricate legal system and emphasis on codified law, further cemented the concept that predictable, publicly known legal standards were essential for a stable society.

Across millennia, whenever societies sought to escape the arbitrary nature of despotic rule, they invariably circled back to this principle. A powerful historical example is the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. Faced with the tyrannical excesses of King John, English barons compelled him to agree to a charter that explicitly limited royal power. Among its most famous clauses is one that states:

No freeman shall be seized or imprisoned, or disseised or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

This wasn't just a concession; it was a foundational assertion that even the monarch was subject to "the law of the land," establishing a precedent that would ripple through centuries of legal and political thought, influencing constitutionalism worldwide. It underscored that due process and legal standards were not privileges, but fundamental rights against executive overreach.

And so, when an immigration judge today finds "no legal basis" for an administration's policy, it is not merely a technicality. It is the living, breathing manifestation of this ancient, hard-won principle. It demonstrates the judiciary's role as a bulwark, ensuring that even in matters of national policy and executive action, the adherence to law and legal procedures remains paramount. But how do we ensure that this essential, yet fragile, framework of law continues to withstand the pressures of expediency and political will in an ever-changing world?