Too Bad We Stopped Taking The Constitution Seriously: Delegation Of Powers

Forbes ^ | October 6, 2014 | George Leef

[reaganaut1]

Do you think you would like living in a country where the ruler or his minions could declare what the law was, change it at will, and decide whether someone was guilty of a violation?

Certainly not. People risk their lives to escape from such places, North Korea and Cuba, for instance.

Long ago, Englishmen began to rebel against such government – rule by royal prerogative – beginning in 1215 with Magna Carta, which kept the King from arresting and punishing subjects except in accordance with established legal procedures. Later, English judges would rule that the King could not govern through royal proclamations, and in 1641 Parliament abolished King Charles’ Star Chamber and High Commission, key tools in his heavy-handed reign.

The rule of law – known, fair, and stable – was replacing royal prerogative and the people were far better off for it.

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

“Do you think you would like living in a country where the ruler or his minions could declare what the law was, change it at will, and decide whether someone was guilty of a violation?”

Dear Mr. Leef, in the event that you haven’t noticed, we are already living in that country. ;-(

[WayneS]

Do you think you would like living in a country where the ruler or his minions could declare what the law was, change it at will, and decide whether someone was guilty of a violation?

I not only would not like living in such a country, I do not like living in such a country.

[Iron Munro]

Do you think you would like living in a country where the ruler or his minions could declare what the law was, change it at will, and decide whether someone was guilty of a violation?

He means a place like Obama's Amerika.

[BlueDragon]

"... beginning in 1215 with Magna Carta"

I was just thinking of that very thing the other day.

Although that focused much on the rights of landed gentry type of persons, in relationship to those regarded as king or ruler, it was the cracking open of the fasci of judiciary or magisterial law to become tempered (if not near eventually, entirely replaced) with common law.

As to the heading of the article itself -- I much prefer that (the Constitution of the United States) to what we seem to have now.