quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Assuming that political pressure was used to "encourage" BP to make such a fund, then the basic concept of "the rule of law", not "the rule of men" was indeed violated, even if no written law was violated.

Pressure can mean many things, but in this instance, if the judgment of one man caused BP to commit funds outside of a legal requirement, against their desire, then that was the imposition of a man's will over the "will" of law, and a clear violation of one of the most common concepts of "the rule of law".

Now, if BP themselves decided, for public relations or moral reasons to do the same thing, then that would have been a free expression and act of contrition/public relations/morality.

Do we know how the decision actually occurred?  No.  Therefore, unless or until evidence comes out that it was a "forced" decision, no one can truly say that they know it was a violation of the concept of "rule of law".

The circumstances, however, are suspicious, and it is not in the interests of BP to admit the facts of the case, so I doubt we will every know.

However, the main topic was the lack of understanding of the NYT in understanding what "the rule of law" is, and now (in my mind) has become about the fact that it seems that not many on the left side of the political equation understand what it is, either.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

FR:

The topic of conversation isn't about (necessarily) the BP "payment" of $20 billion.  It is about a NYT reporter not understanding that the "rule of law" is not some ancient, drug up, old fashioned concept, but the very basis of the US system of governance.

The US government's apparent coercion of the BP payment is an example of its failure to follow the rule of law.

Firm

which one of the over 60,000,000 rules law might that be man?

what is due process and the "rule of law"

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

Although credit for popularizing the expression "the rule of law" in modern times is usually given to A. V. Dicey, development of the legal concept can be traced through history as far back as Ancient Greece.

British jurist A. V. Dicey popularized the phrase "rule of law" in 1885.  Dicey emphasized three aspects of the rule of law: (1) no one can be punished or made to suffer except for a breach of law proved in an ordinary court; (2) no one is above the law and everyone is equal before the law regardless of social, economic, or political status; and (3) the rule of law includes the results of judicial decisions determining the rights of private persons.

In addition to the formal and substantive interpretations of the term "rule of law", another leading interpretation is the functional definition, which is consistent with the traditional English meaning that contrasts the "rule of law" with the "rule of man."  According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of law", whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law". The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable

All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

rule of law?  nobody is above the law is about how that sifts out.

I believe it was fundamentally destroyed with Ws signing statements. I assume that's what you meant by not knowing history, or the noblesse oblige and lese magiste we should have in this country regarding the looting of our treasury, orchestrating an illegal invasion of a soveriegn nation without provocation,  slow undoing of our rights, and our engaging in torture and so many other things in this country.

And now, just now, a few nutsuckers have come to consiousness?    

A dichotomy can be identified between two principal conceptions of the rule of law: a formalist or "thin" and a substantive or "thick" definition of the rule of law. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself,  (that would be the take of these nutsuckers) but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law.

Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law (that would be those of us who are of reason).

quote:

asserted that the $20 billion escrow fund that the Obama administration forced BP to set up to pay damages from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill circumvented “the rule of law,” Hayek’s term for the unwritten code that prohibits the government from interfering with the pursuit of “personal ends and desires.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

The "rule of law" as I am discussing it (with thanks to Wikipedia):

Although credit for popularizing the expression "the rule of law" in modern times is usually given to A. V. Dicey, development of the legal concept can be traced through history as far back as Ancient Greece.

British jurist A. V. Dicey popularized the phrase "rule of law" in 1885.  Dicey emphasized three aspects of the rule of law: (1) no one can be punished or made to suffer except for a breach of law proved in an ordinary court; (2) no one is above the law and everyone is equal before the law regardless of social, economic, or political status; and (3) the rule of law includes the results of judicial decisions determining the rights of private persons.

In addition to the formal and substantive interpretations of the term "rule of law", another leading interpretation is the functional definition, which is consistent with the traditional English meaning that contrasts the "rule of law" with the "rule of man."  According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of law", whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law". The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable

All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Want to talk about your confirmation bias theories Firm?

You spout off about that then go to Wiki to find whatever you can to confirm your latest pseudo-intellectual nonsense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

A society does not conform to the rule of law, a society establishes the rule of law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

There is no magical fundamental truth of law that every society adheres to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

asserted that the $20 billion escrow fund that the Obama administration forced BP to set up to pay damages from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill circumvented “the rule of law,” Hayek’s term for the unwritten code that prohibits the government from interfering with the pursuit of “personal ends and desires.”

So take them to court. If that's the case, it will be struck down. If not, move on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

BP agreed, vs. forced, and set aside money it was going to have to pay anyway--a good PR move, considering many of the Exxon claims were never collected. And, transferring funds is something the government does well.

What does this accomplish? Little, except lending some credibility to the expectations that claims will be paid.

The rest of the rhetoric is predictable from the camp that's determined to label everything Obama illegal--including citizenship.

(1) no one can be punished or made to suffer except for a breach of law proved in an ordinary court;

(2) no one is above the law and everyone is equal before the law regardless of social, economic, or political status; and

(3) the rule of law includes the results of judicial decisions determining the rights of private persons.

(4) The "rule of law" is preferred over the "rule of man."

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

I find it odd that the same people who cry out "rule of law!" with respect to a the President seeking to force a corporation to pay damages, sudden go mute when the same President asserts his right to summarily imprison or even execute any American citizen based on nothing more than his belief that said person is dangerous.

In theory, Obama could simply order the execution of the BP executives, and be done with it.

Not that he would, but according to neocon legal theory, he could.

In response to Firm, this lefty has nothing against rule of law- we have been screaming about it since the War on Terra began.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Your magical "rule of law" then is based on morality.  Correct?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

So how do you come to the conclusion that Obama was immoral by forcing those who caused damage to others to accept responsibility?

quote:

you seem to think I've claimed

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Your magical "rule of law" then is based on morality.  Correct?

Conclusion without evidence.

But a pretty good thread topic, all on its own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

So how do you come to the conclusion that Obama was immoral by forcing those who caused damage to others to accept responsibility?

If Obama "forced" BP to pay billions of dollars, outside the law, before legal proceedings, then it's immaterial whether or not they would later owe it due to their responsibility for the damage they caused.

This

1. Action
2. Establishment of guilt by law.
3. Punishment in accordance to the law.

Not:

1. Action
2.  Punishment at the command of a man.
3.  Establishment of guilt by law

Firm

quote:

This

1. Action
2. Establishment of guilt by law.
3. Punishment in accordance to the law.

Not:

1. Action
2.  Punishment at the command of a man.
3.  Establishment of guilt by law

quote:

This

1. Action
2. Establishment of guilt by law.
3. Punishment in accordance to the law.

Not:

1. Action
2.  Punishment at the command of a man.
3.  Establishment of guilt by law

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

But the operative word there is "personal". Corporations aren't "persons" in any sense that someone with half a brain would accept (legal definitions to the contrary notwithstanding).

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
I have to agree that Hayek is worth reading, for anyone who hasn't. But the operative word there is "personal". Corporations aren't "persons" in any sense that someone with half a brain would accept (legal definitions to the contrary notwithstanding).

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Your magical "rule of law" then is based on morality.  Correct?

Conclusion without evidence.

But a pretty good thread topic, all on its own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

So how do you come to the conclusion that Obama was immoral by forcing those who caused damage to others to accept responsibility?

If Obama "forced" BP to pay billions of dollars, outside the law, before legal proceedings, then it's immaterial whether or not they would later owe it due to their responsibility for the damage they caused.