During his second term, President Richard M. Nixon sought to put the executive branch of the federal government beyond the reach of a trial. When he received a subpoena asking him to produce a number of recordings purporting to link him to the Watergate conspiracy and cover-up, Nixon refused to comply, saying the confidentiality of those recordings was protected from disclosure by absolute and unfettered executive privilege. In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 pp. Ct. 3090, 41 L. Ed.
2d 1039 (1974), the Supreme Court disagreed and forced the President to hand over the recordings because the Constitution prohibits any branch of government from unilaterally thwarting the legitimate purposes of a criminal investigation. Under the rule of law, no one can be prosecuted for an act that is not punishable. If the government tries to punish someone for a crime that was not classified as criminal at the time it was committed, the rule of law is violated because the government exceeds its legal power to punish. The rule of law requires that government be accountable only to the extent permitted by law. The government exceeds its powers when a person is held responsible for an act that was legally permitted in the first place, but was declared illegal retroactively. This principle is reflected in the prohibition of ex post facto laws in the U.S. Constitution. RULE. Legal norms are general maxims formed by the courts, which, after observing what is common to many individual cases, proclaim this agreement by a maxim called rule; because it is a rule for their decision in doubtful and unforeseen cases; It covers specific cases within the framework of general principles. Toull.
Titmouse. Prel. No. 17; 1 Bl. Com. 44; Domat, liv. Prel. vol. 1, p. 1 Ram on Judgm.
10 years 3 barn. & Adol. 34; 2 Russ. R. 216, 580, 581; 4 Russ. R. 305; 10 Price`s R. 218, 219, 228; 1 barn. & Cr. 86; 7 Bing. R. 280; 1 Ld.
Raym. 728; 5 R. T. 5; 4 M. and p. 348. The rule of law requires that the government exercise its authority in accordance with established and clearly written rules, regulations and legal principles. Sometimes a distinction is made between power, will and violence on the one hand and law on the other. When a civil servant acts on the basis of an express provision of a written law, he or she is acting within the framework of the rule of law. But when a government official acts without the imprimatur of a law, he or she does so by the simple power of personal will and power. The rule of law is an ambiguous term that can have different meanings in different contexts.
In one context, the term rule means to govern according to the law. No one may be ordered by the government to pay civil damages or to be prosecuted except in strict accordance with established and clearly defined laws and procedures. In a second context, the term means domination before the law. No branch of government is above the law and no public official may act arbitrarily or unilaterally outside the law. In a third context, the term domination means according to a higher law. No written law can be enforced by the government if it does not conform to certain unwritten universal principles of fairness, morality, and justice that transcend human legal systems. Below are possible answers to the No Legal Force crossword hint. Members of the federal and state judiciary face a slightly different rule of law problem. Every day, judges are asked to interpret and apply legal principles that go beyond clarity. Terms such as “due process”, “due diligence” and “undue influence” do not define themselves. Nor do judges always agree on how these terms should be defined, interpreted or applied. When judges make controversial decisions, they are often accused of deciding cases based on their personal beliefs, whether political, religious or philosophical, rather than in accordance with the law.
Well-established and well-defined laws allow individuals, corporations and other entities to regulate their conduct accordingly (United States v. E.C. Investments, Inc., 77 F.3d 327 [9th Cir. 1996]). Before the government can impose civil or criminal liability, a law must be drafted with sufficient precision and clarity so that a person of ordinary intelligence knows that a particular conduct is prohibited. For example, if a court is ordered to close a paint plant that illegally emits pollutants, the rule of law requires the government to prove that the mill owner did not operate the business in accordance with publicly known environmental standards. If you still haven`t solved the crossword puzzle because you don`t have legal force, search our database for the letters you already have! A conundrum arises when the government acts in strict accordance with established and well-defined legal rules and always achieves a result that many observers consider unfair or unjust. Before the Civil War, for example, African Americans were systematically deprived of their liberty by carefully written codes dictating the rules and regulations between masters and slaves.
Although these slave codes were often detailed, unambiguous and publicly known, the government`s enforcement led to negative results. For example, the due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments requires that legal provisions be sufficiently specific to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory execution by a prosecutor. State officials should not have unlimited discretion to prosecute individuals who have violated a law so vague or of such broad application that impartial administration is not possible. For example, a Florida law prohibiting vagrancy was struck down for vagueness because it was so broadly worded that it encouraged erratic prosecution and punished normally harmless conduct (Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 pp. Ct. 839, 31 L.
Ed. 2d 110 [1972]). govern in accordance with the law; govern in accordance with the law; or rule according to a higher law. During the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas argued that the rule of law represents the natural order of God as established by divine inspiration and human reason. In the seventeenth century, the English jurist Sir Edward Coke asserted that “the king should not be among anyone, but under God and the law.” Referring to the legislative power in England, Coke stated: “If an Act of Parliament is contrary to common law and reason, or can be applied in a repugnant or impossible manner, the common law will control it and declare such an act null and void.” In the United States, Alexander Hamilton applied the rule of law to justice when he wrote in The Federalist, No. 78, argued that judges “have neither power nor will, but only judgment.” Under the Constitution, no branch of government in the United States has unlimited power. The authority granted to one branch of government is limited by the authority granted to the coordinating branches and by the Bill of Rights, federal laws, and historical practice. The power of a single branch of government is also limited to the state level. For similar reasons, the rule of law is restricted when the government tries to punish someone for violating a vague or poorly worded law. Undefined laws give too much discretion to government officials charged with prosecuting individuals for criminal misconduct. The more prosecutorial decisions are based on the personal discretion of a government official, the less they are based on the law.
Despite its ancient history, the rule of law has not been celebrated in all areas. Nineteenth-century English philosopher Jeremy Bentham described the rule of law as “nonsense on stilts.” The twentieth century has seen its share of political leaders oppress and govern individuals or groups without warning or reason, as if the rule of law did not exist. For many people around the world, the rule of law is essential to freedom. Michener, Roger, ed. 1995. The balance of freedom: political economy, law and learning. New York: Paragon House. Sirica, John. J. 1979. To set the record straight: burglary, recordings, conspirators, forgiveness. New York: Norton.
Smith, Steven. 1995. “Nonsense and Natural Law.” Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 4. The rule of law also requires that the government exercise its statutory powers. This requirement is sometimes explained by the phrase “No one is above the law”. During the seventeenth century, however, the English monarch was endowed with absolute sovereignty, including the prerogative to disregard the laws of the House of Commons and to ignore the decisions of the House of Lords. In the eighteenth century, absolute sovereignty was transferred from the British monarchy to Parliament, an event that did not escape the attention of the colonists who sparked the American Revolution and created the U.S. Constitution. In other countries, political leaders assert that all written laws must conform to universal principles of morality, fairness and justice. These leaders argue that as a necessary consequence of the axiom that “no one is above the law,” the rule of law requires that the government treat all people equally before the law. But the right to equal treatment is compromised when the government categorically denies a modicum of respect, dignity and autonomy to a single category of people. These unwritten principles of equality, autonomy, dignity and respect are intended to go beyond ordinary written laws passed by government.
Sometimes known as natural law or higher legal theory, these unwritten, universal principles were used by the Allied powers at the Nuremberg trials to overcome the defense of Nazi leaders. Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison and John Jay. 1787–88. The Federalist Papers. Reprint, edited by Gary Wills, New York: Bantam Books, 1988.