Robs ADHD is kicking in again
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=149956&page=2
Strangely enough he cannot actually show that he doesn't consent to be governed, apart from saying it on internet forums.
He says he doesn't consent yet by his actions of obeying the law he does???
And once again we have the classic Menard technique of "make up my own definitions for well established concepts". In this case, the rule of law. Let's see how he does.
Menard said:
Rule of Law states that conflict is unnecessary, avoidable and undesirable, and when it raises its head we are to deal with it using discussion, negotiation and THEN IF NECESSARY adjudication in a court of competent jurisdiction.
The rule of law "states" nothing of the sort. Several people have already gone to the trouble to explain this clearly and simply. Like rumpole in that very thread:
rumpole said:
Sigh - it's the Doctrine that says that the Law applies to everyone equally whoever they might be. For example an MP can tried for theft for fiddlling his expenses or a Lord Justice of Appeal can be prosecuted for allegedly feeling up a young lady on the train.
And Horatius in this very thread:
Horatius said:
So, two things here: the Judge can govern you and still maintain the "rule of law", so long as those same rules apply to the Judge. That is, he can't drive without insurance either.
And I posted the SCC's opinion of the rule of law in Canada:
Secession Reference said:
In the Manitoba Language Rights Reference, supra, at pp. 747-52, this Court outlined the elements of the rule of law. We emphasized,
first, that the rule of law provides that the law is supreme over the acts of both government and private persons. There is, in short, one law for all.
Second, we explained, at p. 749, that "the rule of law requires the creation and maintenance of an actual order of positive laws which preserves and embodies the more general principle of normative order". It was this second aspect of the rule of law that was primarily at issue in the Manitoba Language Rights Reference itself. A
third aspect of the rule of law is, as recently confirmed in the Provincial Judges Reference, supra, at para. 10, that "the exercise of all public power must find its ultimate source in a legal rule". Put another way, the relationship between the state and the individual must be regulated by law. Taken together, these three considerations make up a principle of profound constitutional and political significance.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1998/1998canlii793/1998canlii793.html
The three elements of the rule of law are:
1. The supremacy of law
2. A body of positive law
3. Public power is legitimate only if exercised lawfully
Number 1 is what rumpole and Horatius are referring to. No one is above the law. Even those who administer it and those create it.
Especially those who administer it and those who create it.
Number 2 means *gasp* statutes and the body of precedents known as common law. (The issue in the
Manitoba Language Rights Reference on this point was that all of Manitoba's statutes were English only - a violation of the constitution).
Number 3 means that governments can't rule by fiat or by the will of the royal sovereign. Combined with number 1, it means we are ruled by laws, not men.
In Canada, the SCC also conjoins the "rule of law" with "constitutionalism" into a single, dual-aspect principle. The second aspect of that principle - constitutionalism - is this:
Secession Reference said:
The constitutionalism principle bears considerable similarity to the rule of law, although they are not identical. The essence of constitutionalism in Canada is embodied in s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, which provides that "[t]he Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect." Simply put, the constitutionalism principle requires that all government action comply with the Constitution. The rule of law principle requires that all government action must comply with the law, including the Constitution. This Court has noted on several occasions that with the adoption of the Charter, the Canadian system of government was transformed to a significant extent from a system of Parliamentary supremacy to one of constitutional supremacy. The Constitution binds all governments, both federal and provincial, including the executive branch (Operation Dismantle Inc. v. The Queen, 1985 CanLII 74 (S.C.C.), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441, at p. 455). They may not transgress its provisions: indeed, their sole claim to exercise lawful authority rests in the powers allocated to them under the Constitution, and can come from no other source.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Statutes and common law are the body of positive law. Both combine to form the normative order of the rule of law in Canada. This normative order binds government, and no government action is legitimate if not sourced in this normative order.
Compare that with the FOTL version:
Menard said:
It also holds that equality is paramount and mandatory, and as such NO MAN CAN GOVERN ANOTHER WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER.
Which is the rule of men, not laws. FOTLers hate the rule of law and wish to be rid of it. They wish to be above the normative of order of Canada (in Menard's case). They want a line item veto on the law, and they grant to themselves the power of choosing which laws apply to them and which do not.
This is no different than the divine right of kings and has no place in modern, democratic societies.
