Philosophical Question on Rule of Law and What that means now

[lala_rawraw]

The government and the people operate via a contract that both are expected to uphold. What then happens if the government does not uphold its part of the social contract? Does that make the contract null and void, hence the citizens need not uphold it either? Because in a democracy a one way legal structure, in other words, the one aimed only at the citizens is not really doable. Either the system of governance is recognized officially for being something other than Democracy or if the structure is still recognized as a Democracy, then the people need not be obligated to the contract.

In other words, let's say you are arrested for drunk driving (not that I support this in any way, but just example for this discussion), how can you be tried for something that the President, a citizen of the same country, is not tried?

Or, if the government steals from the citizens, in let's say the ballpark of about $9 billion, then on what grounds must the people pay their taxes? If the IRS would attempt to audit or arrest someone, would it not be just and fair to argue that because the government does not uphold its financial obligations to the people and furthermore, because it actually steals from the people and lies about it, should the IRS not be looking into the stolen $ 9 billion, instead of, let's say your 2k or something?

Really, in a court of law, everything is precedent at some point. I would think that because the government is above the law, that fact alone, is enough to say "there is no law". Again, just philosophical musings. Any thoughts?

[Deja Q]

1. We're all taught not to stand up, and George Washington would cryy.

American Idol and other brain-killing TV has made people indolent; people don't care as long as they're fed and have a home and have a good job and have the ability to buy plastic shit and can call in to make sure that talentless twit Constantine wins. (good grief, how he got past his first performance is beyond me, how he tore apart "Kiss From a Rose" with no conviction, emotion, or desire whatsoever... out of touch.)

But I digress!

Take enough of their comforts away and the people will be apathetic, suicidal, or revengeful.

Until 1980, many jobs were secure and people could live stress-free.

After that point, offshoring of industries (especially textile and I.T.) increased.

When the crash does occur, most people will be apathetic or suicidal.

Why?

We've seen it happening slowly for 2.5 decades, if not longer. We say we have no power and let them continue to rape us without a proverbial condom.

We've all been taught not to act out of our places. So nothing will ever happen. Why else are they being so boisterous and bold about their plans now? They know nobody will stand up for (let alone fight for) what is right.

Which is a pity, George Washington and his band of rabble-rousers had 'flipped the bird' to the oppressive greedy regime they had fled from, and miraculously won.

[lala_rawraw]

2. So is that

makes rule of law what, for citizens?

[Terran1212]

3. If it's supposed to be a contract...

Shouldn't violations in international law by the US be met with similar events across the world towards the US?

[lala_rawraw]

4. One would think

I just wonder if the argument can be made, let's say, in a DUI case that "if the President can do it" then "why can't I?" and see you the problem with having criminal activity so blatantly disregarded? What kind of answer could a judge and/or jury give to that?

[paineinthearse]

5. I'll remember this argument when I get hauled into tax court.

Is Kunsler available?

[lala_rawraw]

6. This is philosophical, purely...

So honestly, give me some serious thinking font here:) I know you have it in you darn it.

[H2O Man]

7. It's not a legal defense.

If there are ten cars speeding on the highway, and you are caught, the other nine getting away with it do not create a defense for you. Trying to raise it as such will get you no farther than did telling your parents "but EVERYONE ELSE is doing it!"

The incident with our noble leader that is reported to have involved drinking and driving has nothing to do with any social contract with citizens and government. Bush was not an elected official at the time.

Most rumors about Bush are simply lies that Dan Rather planted years ago. If you watched Fox News, you would know that.

On a more serious note, in Otsego County, NY, there was a county judge named Joseph Magavero who used to get stumbling drunk most nights in local bars. It was known that he drove into ditches, etc, and the police would tow his car out, and deliver him to his house. One night he went in the ditch, and "someone" called the Oneonta Daily Star. Their reporter got a night-time photo of the car being pulled out of the ditch, and a very drunk judge cursing the camera. Old Joe had some legal consequences then.

[lala_rawraw]

8. It is not that "everyone else" is...

It is that those making the laws are doing it. See my point? Those making the laws, carrying out the laws, and representing the laws are not upholding them. That means that they write laws for "the little people" of the land. Perhaps the most obvious example was not the best.

[paineinthearse]

9. You're posting a philosophical question on a Saturday night?

PM me Monday morning, my head may be clearer then.

:beer: