2/01 The Rule Of Law

The Rule of Law
Larry Pratt

Much was heard of the rule of law during the election aftermath. The debate revealed many misunderstandings of this concept.

This should help gun owners understand the perversion of the rule of law which has been used to justify more calls for more restrictions on firearms.

Almost lost in the discussion was the idea that voting is a means, not an end. Majorities are not ultimate in the American constitutional system of a democratic republic. Our system of government was set up to frustrate majorities and protect minorities.

That is why we have two Senators from North Dakota, the same as we have two Senators from California. The Electoral College reflects this weighting in favor of small states. Both the Senate and the Electoral College were set up to frustrate majorities — particularly if they were achieved by theft or purchased by a well-financed propaganda campaign.

The founders wanted majorities to be checked every step of the way. That is why they did not provide for initiatives and referenda. They intended for representatives to make law, not for law to be made through direct democracy. It is also why it is so hard to amend our constitution.

The people’s will is to be heard in the selection of Representatives to the U.S. Congress, and now, in the selection of Senators as well (originally Senators were to be chosen by state legislatures which had been popularly elected).

Al Gore’s post-election legal strategy did not even truthfully pursue his oft-stated goal of having “every vote count.” Gore only wanted certain (heavily Democratic) counties counted, wanted those counties counted in ways that would most benefit Gore, and wanted military ballots discarded.

Al Gore was looking for a way to change the rules to get a favorable majority.

Does that sound similar to arguments for gun control? We are told that we have a living, evolving constitution. In fact, Al Gore himself has espoused such a position.

We are told that while nine amendments of the Bill of Rights protect individual rights, the Second Amendment protects the right of a state to have a militia. This would have come as a great surprise to the founders.

We are told that rights must be balanced (particularly when talking about the right to keep and bear arms). At this point “shall not be infringed” seems to be no obstacle at all to restricting firearms ownership in the name of balance.

Even supporters of the Second Amendment can be confounded by the corruption of the rule of law. How else do we explain the call for enforcing the existing infringements of the right to keep and bear arms known as Project Exile?

The post election contest is a powerful teaching tool to educate gun owners and the population at large. If you did not like what you saw being done to the integrity of the voting process in Florida, perhaps it will be easier to understand just how much has been done to corrupt the integrity of the Second Amendment.

Al Gore is a staunch proponent of restricting the right to keep and bear arms to that of the protection of recreational shooting. He is also a strong proponent of counting only those votes that count for him.

The rule of law is all about protecting citizens from rulers such as Al Gore.

The rule of law does not work in a vacuum. It must be upheld by enough of the population that the rulers are constrained to adhere to it, too. We have our work cut out for ourselves.