One of the first things law-enforcement officers are taught (or, at least, should be taught) in police training is that they cannot arrest or cite people on the basis of their own arbitrary opinions of what is right and wrong, lawful and unlawful, but only for actual violations of the law. And that is a good thing, because it protects us as citizens from being arrested, charged or punished arbitrarily based on the views and opinions of government officials.
Our states and our nation, as well as counties and municipalities, operate as a nomocracy rather than an autocracy, which simply means we operate under the rule of law rather than under the arbitrary rule of an individual, whether that individual is a good dictator or a bad one.
For example, even if I, when a police officer, thought it was unsafe to drive a car at 65 miles per hour in a certain location, I could not have legally stopped anyone and issued a summons to court if the speed limit set by the state was 65 mph or more. Or, if I believed gambling to be wrong but the state authorized the sale of lottery tickets, I would have had no authority to arrest or cite someone for buying or selling a lottery ticket.
As another example: Several years ago, I arrived at an accident scene as a newspaper reporter and was outside the police line and taking photos. I was not obstructing police operations or in anyone's way but I was threatened with arrest for taking photos at the accident scene. I complied with the request to stop taking photos, but were the request and threat lawful? Was there a law against taking photos in a public place? The answer is no. It just happened to be the opinion of some emergency workers there that someone from the newspaper should not be able to take photos for possible publication -- and that happened while others were allowed to take photos with their cell phones and share them via social media. Had I been arrested, it would have been hard to convict me of any crime without a law prohibiting taking photos on a public road. And, the arresting agency would have opened itself up to an expensive federal lawsuit for violating my First Amendment rights.
But back to the principle of being governed by the rule of law, there is a big difference in how that rule of law affects individual citizens and how it affects government and its representatives. As an individual, I have the liberty and freedom to do anything not prohibited by law. Government and government representatives may not do anything not authorized by law.
This, of course, does not make the private citizen free of a higher moral law. In fact, the Christian and God-fearing citizen will use his or her freedom to live in accord with God's law. But when people have no fear and respect for God's law and His judgments, they often abuse their liberties and end up losing them because governments must step in and pass laws to control their immoral acts.
But do you see the difference? I can choose to work hard, make money and go buy a house or a car. A government cannot take or collect any money or property not authorized by law and it cannot buy anything without the law first authorizing the purchase and expenditure. As a private citizen, I have the freedom to choose what I do for a living and how I manage my business and my finances. Governments and government officials may only do those things they are authorized to do by law and must carry out those functions as directed by law.
And in our nomocracy, there is also a supreme law -- our constitutions, both state and federal -- which supersedes and is used to judge other laws. In fact, it is the basis for the power to enact other laws. These constitutions authorize the legislatures to enact laws, the executive branches to carry out and enforce laws and the judicial branches to judge the constitutionality of laws. And when laws are passed which go beyond the limits set in state and federal constitutions, those laws are made null and void.
Why this basic lesson in civics? Aside from the likelihood that many may not have had much of a civics education in their schools, it leads to a logical question. If federal or state government officials or agencies are acting arbitrarily and without constitutionally enacted laws (i.e., executive orders and judicial fiat), or if laws and actions clearly exceed what constitutions authorize (consider the limits placed upon the federal government in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution), are we bound to obey or should such laws and arbitrary actions be ignored and rejected as contrary to the rule of law?
At the very least, we ought to let our voices be heard in the public arena and at the polls, decrying the sad state of affairs when our government leaders act like autocrats and oligarchs rather than nomocrats.
• • •
Randy Moll is the managing editor of the Westside Eagle Observer. He may be contacted by email at [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Editorial on 04/27/2016