Rule of Law

There is not a clear definition of the rule of law but several principals guide it. The basic principles of the rule of law are government should operate within the confines of the law, provide for social control and stability through the law, equal treatment for all under the law, laws should be clear and reasonable, and the sovereign should create and abide by the law (Altman, 2001). Creation of the rule of law establishes authority and prevents conflict.

Thomas Hobbes, a seventeenth century philosopher, did not believe in the concept of the rule of law. He did not believe that the rule of law would work in society due to the nature of humankind. He believed that the human traits of ego, distrust, competitiveness and yearning for power would make it impossible for humankind to obey laws without fear or penalty. His belief was the sovereigns could not answer to themselves and there was not a person or group of people capable of thinking about societal needs without personal motives of gain (Altman, 2001). He felt if the sovereign created the law, there could be no one above the sovereign to ensure compliance or the sovereign would not exist. This nullified the principle that the rule of law could exist. The rule of law had another flaw, according to Hobbes. He believed the concept of the rule of law would lead societal members to rebellion, which may escalate as far as civil war, if they did not agree with the laws created.

Hobbes believed the rebellion would result because we all have the right to protect our basic needs and ourselves. He believes that as society interacts, judgment is poor and needed guidance because judgment may differ from one person to another. In the end, Hobbes believes that a sovereign above the law needs to exist. This sovereign will make all the rules about what is just and what is expected. This will place everyone on a level playing field and people's morality will keep them true to the sovereign (Altman, 2001). The sovereign will singular and all-powerful making laws in reference to religion as well as crime. There will be no dispersion of power among groups because this will lead to confusion.

A nineteenth century philosopher, John Austin, has some similar thought processes. Austin also believed that the sovereign must exist above the law. If the sovereign consisted of a group, however, the members of the sovereign would be obliged to follow the law but the sovereign as a group did not. The sovereign could punish individual members for violations of law but public opinion would be the only punishment for the sovereign if they chose not to obey the laws they collectively created (Bix, 2010). The sovereign would create the law and fear of punishment would enforce the law (Altman, 2001).

Austin differentiated morality from law and felt there were different types of law. There were laws that resulted in punishment if violated, and there were those that gave power to individuals such as the writing of wills, contracts, etc. He stated that the mere existence of a law did not imply it was just or moral. Austin believed that every society has a sovereign, and the sovereign had power to give commands (Bix, 2010). He also believed that society could dictate to the sovereign laws that needed creation by public opinion. Austin also believed that a sovereign that abided by law did so to avoid dismay from the public (Altman, 2001).

In the case of the impeachment of former President Clinton, Hobbes would not have agreed with such proceedings. Former President Clinton would have been the sovereign and therefore not subject to punishment for